We've all heard the following response when we have tried to share a truth from Scripture - "Well, that's just your interpretation!" This retort begs the question of whether there are in fact many valid interpretations or whether there is only one interpretation intended by the author (and the Author). While there is no doubt that genuine believers will differ in their interpretations on a number of difficult passages, the truth is that every passage has only one valid, correct interpretation. God did not stutter nor did He speak in ambiguities. He said what He said and meant what He said, regardless of whether we as finite creatures can agree on what He said. Biblical truth is the ultimate objective truth (Ps 119:160-note, Pr 30:5) for it is God's inerrant, plenary (complete in every aspect) inspired Word (2Ti 3:16-note). It therefore behooves all sincere believers to be very careful in our approach to handling and interpreting His precious truth (cp 2Ti 2:15-note, Paul in Acts 20:27, 2Co 4:2, He 5:14-note; Pr 30:6, Re 22:18-note, Re 22:19-note; Dt 4:2, 12:32). The apostle Peter issued a stern warning to those who play "fast and loose" with the Scriptures, noting that Paul's epistles contain

some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Pe 3:16-note; cp Paul's parting warning to the Ephesian elders - Acts 20:29, 30- "perverse" = twisted, distorted, perverted)

Webster defines interpretation as explaining or telling the meaning of something and presenting it in understandable terms. In interpretation you are seeking to place yourself in the writer's sandals, setting aside any preconceived ideas with the ultimate goal of arriving at the writer's original intent - including the intent of the ultimate Author, which sometimes goes beyond even the understanding of the human writer (as pointed out by Peter -- 1Pe 1:10, 11, 12-notes). 

A synonym for interpretation is hermeneutics which is derived from the name of the pagan god Hermes who brought messages from the pagan gods to mortals, "translating" them as it were. The related Greek verb hermeneuo (click Greek word study) means to bring someone to an understanding of what is conveyed in another language, making it clear and intelligible and thus in a sense "translating" it. Hermeneutics then is the science (and art) of interpretation, in this case the interpretation of the Bible. The comments and "steps" below will enable you to practice good "hermeneutic" technique, but clearly cannot substitute for more in depth training and instruction in this area. If you want more (a whole lot more) on hermeneutics then I would highly recommend downloading (free) the 152 page Pdf by Dr Stephen R Lewis which is the "class handout" for "Bible 405: Hermeneutics: The Study of the Interpretation of Scriptures" offered at Chafer Theological Seminary. (Hermeneutics - Study of Interpretation of Scriptures) (See also Axioms for Interpretation)

Listen to the wise warning from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones...

There is nothing so dangerous as to come to the Bible with a theory, with preconceived ideas, with some pet idea of our own, because the moment we do so, we shall be tempted to over-emphasize one aspect and under-emphasize another. (from chapter 1 of "Studies in the Sermon on the Mount", a modern day classic)

Dr. Howard Hendricks reminds us that...

"Meaning” (of the Scriptural passage) is not our subjective thoughts read into the text but God's objective truth read out of the text. As someone has well said, the task of Bible study is to “think God’s thoughts after Him." The miracle is that He used human authors to do so. Working through their personalities, their circumstances, and their concerns, the Holy Spirit superintended the crafting of a document. And each of the human authors—God's coauthors, we might call them—had a specific message in mind as he recorded his portion of the text. That’s why I like to refer to the step of Interpretation as the recreation process. We’re attempting to stand in the author’s shoes and re-create his experience—to think as he thought, to feel as he felt, and to decide as he decided. We’re asking, What did this mean to him? before we ever ask, What does it mean to us?"

Hendricks goes on to remark that

in Observation we excavate. In Interpretation we erect. And buildings are always determined by their foundations. The more substantial the foundation, the more substantial the superstructure...In the same way, the quality of your interpretation will always depend on the quality of your observation. It is impossible to understand what a writer means until you notice what the writer says. Therefore, to observe well is to interpret well. You always need to observe with a view to interpreting (and eventually to applying) the Scripture. Observation is never an end in itself but always a means to an end.  (Hendricks, Howard:  Living by the Book) (Bolding added)

The proper interpretation of Scripture has long been a source of debate because many people consider the process too subjective. We've all heard remarks like "Doesn't everyone have their own view?" or "Aren't there many ways to interpret that passage?" The answer in fact is "no" there are not many ways to interpret the Bible. The Bible is not some abstract Picasso painting where everyone weighs in on their opinion as to what message the artist might have meant to convey. In contrast to the relativity so common in our world, it is comforting to know that God offers absolute truth and it follows that every passage of Scripture has only one intended meaning and only one correct interpretation.

On the other hand, the passage may have many applications, but it always has only one intended meaning. Therefore the next time you hear the objection, "There are so many interpretations of the Bible I don't think we can be sure of what it means. So why study it?", ask the objector to interpret a verse like John 3:16. You and (they) will usually find that they can understand the passage and that God's one intended message is very clear.  Perhaps the obvious meaning of verses like John 3:16 is what lead the well known agnostic Mark Twain to quip...

It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand!

THE BIBLE HAS...
ONE INTERPRETATION
MANY APPLICATIONS

Avoid arriving at an interpretation of Scripture based on your personal opinion, popular consensus, gut feelings, the persuasiveness of an argument, and even what you have been taught by other respected teachers (including a specific "brand" of systematic theology). Sometimes the most difficult aspect of interpretation is to "unlearn" prior faulty, flawed interpretations!

Remember that interpretation is the bridge between observation and application. Accurate interpretation is not only possible but it is crucial lest we inappropriately apply the Bible (click here for a sad example).  Acting on what God has said (application) assumes that you understand what He has said.

Is your approach to the interpretation of  Scripture like a person casting lots? Do you prayerfully open your Bible to see what happens to catch your eye or even worse do you close your eyes, open your Bible, and insert your finger on the page, supposing that the passage you are pointing to is God’s will and word you?

The renowned preacher, G. Campbell Morgan, told of the man who followed this method and came up with “Judas went out and hanged himself.” Finding these words unhelpful, he did it again and this time got “Go, and do thou likewise.” In desperation he tried once more and this time the words that jumped at him were, “What thou doest, do quickly.” The point of this humorous example is that even though this practice shows vast reverence for Scripture as God’s means of communicating with us, it is essential mystical, superstitious and even dangerous.

Because we are human and now see in a mirror dimly (1Cor 13:12), there will always be Bible passages regarding which sincere Bible believers (even those who hold to literal interpretation) will not arrive at complete agreement. On the other hand, most of God’s Holy Word can be confidently and accurately interpreted.

HANDLING ACCURATELY
THE WORD OF TRUTH

The goal of inductive Bible study is to understand what God meant by what He said through human authors.  Paul spoke to this point in exhorting young Timothy to...

Be diligent (make every effort - aorist imperative = commands diligence and effort to be one's immediate response and can even convey a sense of urgency) to present (includes idea of yielding, surrendering to the disposal or service of another) yourself approved (tried as coins were assayed for purity and found to pass the test) to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing (making a straight cut - of a craftsman cutting a straight line, a farmer plowing a straight furrow, a mason setting a straight line of bricks, workmen building a straight road!) the word of truth (Truth is the correspondence between a reality and a declaration which professes to set it forth. Whatever God says is Truth. Truth is also a Person, Jesus). (see note 2Timothy 2:15)

From this verse, it is clear that accurate interpretation takes some "holy sweat" so to speak. And why make this effort? What's the goal? To stand unashamed before our Lord someday. And how can we be certain we will be unashamed? Because during our life on earth, we handled (and lived out) God's Word of Truth with integrity and accuracy. Accurate interpretation therefore is an imminently worthwhile goal.

In this same passage in 2 Timothy, you may have observed that the Greek word for rightly dividing literally means to cut straight and was used in ancient times to describe a craftsman cutting a straight line, a sewer sewing a straight seam, a farmer plowing a straight furrow, a surgeon dissecting a straight line (we all hope so!), a mason laying bricks in a straight line or a workman building a straight road. Figuratively the key point is that whatever the endeavor, careful attention is given to performance of the task to assure utmost accuracy.

The well known Christian speaker and writer Charles Colson sounds a similar caution as Paul does to Timothy writing that...

The longer I’m a Christian, the more I’m in fear of misinterpreting the Bible. It's an awesome responsibility.

Every devout Christian can understand the Bible for as Martin Luther wrote

There is not on earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture (Exposition of the 37th Psalm).

So how does someone without a seminary background rightly divide the Scripture? As you apply the simple principles discussed in the next section, you will learn how to cut the Scriptures straight. Crooked cutting of the Scripture can result in anything from minor errors to total chaos and confusion in the church (click example) or at worst a cult.

Some people want to have their ears tickled and therefore try to make the Bible say what they want to hear. We must align ourselves with the Bible, never the Bible with ourselves. Beloved, every time we go to the Scriptures, we need to treat them as a priceless gift from God and... 
 

Rightly dividing the Word of Truth (Interpretation) is vital if we are going to

walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. (Application) (Colossians 1:10 notes)

Mark it down - the accuracy of your interpretation is directly proportional to the amount of time and effort taken to carefully observe the text.

The more time you spend in observation of the Scriptures, the less time you will have to spend on interpretation and the more accurate will be your interpretation.

The less time you spend observing the text, the more time you will have to spend in Interpretation, and the less accurate will be your result (at least potentially). And without accurate interpretation of the text, there can be no valid application of the Word to your life. 

Accurate interpretation is possible but does require effort. Paul exhorted Timothy to

Think over these things (Ask "What things" for context see 2Ti 2:1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7- notes) I am saying [understand them and grasp their application], for the Lord will grant you full insight and understanding in everything." (see note 2 Timothy 2:7, Amplified Version).

Dr Zuck observes that...

In recent years we have seen a great surge of interest in informal Bible study. Many small groups meet weekly in homes or in churches to discuss the Bible—what it means and how it applies. Do people in those groups always come away with the same understanding of the passage studied? Not necessarily. Some may say, "To me this verse means this," and another person in the group may respond, "To me the verse doesn't mean that; it means this." Studying the Bible in this way, without proper hermeneutical guidelines, can lead to confusion and interpretations that are even in direct conflict. Did God intend for the Bible to be treated in this way? If it can be made to mean anything we want, how can it be a reliable guide?... "You can make the Bible say anything you want," some argue. And yet how many of the same people say, "You can make Shakespeare say anything you want"? Of course it is true that people can make the Bible say anything they wish so long as they disregard normal approaches for understanding written documents.

When many people approach the Bible, they jump from observation to application, skipping the essential step of interpretation. This is wrong because interpretation logically follows after observation. In observing what the Bible says, you probe; in interpretation, you mull. Observation is discovery; interpreting is digesting. Observation means depicting what is there, and interpretation is deciding what it means. The one is to explore, the other is to explain.  (Basic Bible Interpretation - this book is highly recommended if you would like to read more on the vitally important topic of hermeneutics - it is authoritative, readable and very practical.)  (Also available on Wordsearch Bible Software)

To those detractors who say that Inductive Bible Study is too tedious, too technical, too demanding, R C Sproul would say...

The Word of God is deeper than a flannelgraph (definition). It demands the closest possible scrutiny. It calls for the most excellent scholarship. It makes the finest point of technical analysis worth the effort. The yield of such effort is truth.

Finally, the attitude with which we approach interpretation is vitally important. In Isaiah we read of the importance of a trembling heart, God declaring...

My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word. (Is 66:2, cp Is 66:5, Ezra 9:4, 10:3)

As Vance Havner once said...

It is always easier to understand what the Bible says than to understand what somebody thinks it meant to say.

Many resources are available to aid your study of Bible interpretation. Below are a few recommendations some available online at no charge.

How to Study Your Bible by Kay Arthur - succinct, straightforward synopsis of inductive Bible study.

Living by the Book: by Dr Howard Hendricks - classic on inductive study.

Basic Bible Interpretation by Dr Roy B. Zuck - authoritative, well written, easy to understand textbook on hermeneutics (Also on Wordsearch Bible Software)

Basics of Bible Interpretation by Bob Smith - well written book available free of charge online. Excellent guidelines on interpretation of figurative language and practical guidelines on how to utilize the original languages, Greek and Hebrew.

LOCKHART'S
AXIOMS OF HERMENEUTICS
Rules of interpretations are based upon Corollaries formed from two axioms.

AXIOM 1: THE BIBLE IS A BOOK WRITTEN BY PEOPLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY PEOPLE.

COROLLARIES

1. Each Biblical writing was written by someone to specific hearers or readers in a specific historical-geographical situation for a specific purpose.

2. Each Biblical writing was couched in the cultural setting of the times in which it was written.

3. Each Biblical writing was recorded in a written language and followed normal grammatical meanings including figurative language.

4. Each Biblical writing was accepted or understood in the light of its context.

5. Each Biblical writing took on the nature of a specific literary form (genre = category of literature characterized by a particular style, form, or content - History, Poetry, Narrative, Wisdom, Gospels, Prophecy, Letters/Epistles).

6. Each Biblical writing was understood in account with the basic principles of logic and communication.

AXIOM 2: THE BIBLE IS A DIVINE BOOK

COROLLARIES

1. The Bible contains MYSTERY

Only supernatural can answer: Prophecy, Parables, Miracles, Doctrine

2. The Bible contains UNITY

It will not contradict itself (all fits together).
It often interprets itself (study all of it).
Its obscure and secondary passages are to be interpreted in light of clear and primary passages.

3. The Bible contains PROGRESSION

Progressive revelation (from partial to complete).

PRINCIPLE: Practice reading the Scriptures actively (not passively), repeatedly, interrogatively, acquisitively and purposefully.

J C Ryle  (1816-1900 - read a short biography) put it this way...

We must read our Bibles like men digging for hidden treasure.

The value of careful observation cannot be overemphasized. Weak and inaccurate interpretation inevitably results from superficial or careless observation. We must immerse ourselves in the book we are studying by repeated readings of the whole book. If we are reading about the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 on Pentecost, we need to "put our sandals on", so to speak, and imagine ourselves as bystanders to the incredible scene in Jerusalem . Now you're reading with your mind engaged.

Think of the passage you are reading as analogous to one of the center pieces from the jigsaw puzzle depicted above. How do handle one of the odd-shaped puzzle pieces? Don't you usually search carefully for the more obvious pieces...the corner pieces and straight edges? Well, that's the same approach you are going to take as you begin to observe a book or a chapter. You observe with a Focus On The Obvious (F.O.T.O.) If you remember the old television program, Dragnet, Jack Webb's famous line was "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts!" That's the approach we want to take in inductive study.

If you have ever consulted one of Dr. Warren Wiersbe's commentaries, you know that he invariably has incredible insights. How did he arrive at such insightful and accurate interpretations? Well, before he writes a commentary on a passage, Dr. Wiersbe carefully reads and re-reads the entire book (up to 50 times) before he feels competent to even begin to interpret the text! He may not refer to his approach as inductive Bible study, but that is in fact what he is doing as he repetitively and carefully observes the text  and begins to understand the overall context (the corner and straight pieces of the puzzle).

In a similar way, as you read and observe with a purpose you are in essence reading and re-reading the passage. For example in an epistle, you might read through the chapter or book, observing and marking the author. The next time you might re-read and mark the recipient(s). The third time you might read observing and marking key words and/or key phrases (including synonyms). Each time you mark the text, you  should pause and ask as many as the 5 W's or H questions (see note) as possible. As you practice this style of prayerful, purposeful reading, you are becoming familiar with the content of the text and you are beginning to establish the context (see next principle).

It takes some practice to make the interrogative mindset a habit, but over time you will become more comfortable with the 5 W's and H questions. You will be amazed at how competent the Scripture is at answering your questions, especially as you hone your interrogative skills! You will also begin to experience the joy of self discovery of Truth in a way that you had previously thought possible only for those who theological training. You will also notice that as you observe and interrogate the text, the interpretation (and application) begins to "flow" naturally from the observations.

Martin Luther alluded to the practice of careful observation noting that...
 

I study my Bible as I gather apples. First, I shake the whole tree that the ripest may fall. Then I shake each limb, and when I have shaken each limb I shake each branch and every twig. Then I look under every leaf....Pause at every verse of Scripture and shake, as it were, every bough of it, that if possible some fruit at least may drop down.

Keep in mind that although careful observation always precedes accurate interpretation, observation does not inevitably lead to correct interpretation as shown in the humorous illustration of  The Cow (Click here)

Vance Havner wrote that...

Speed-reading may be a good thing, but it was never meant for the Bible. It takes calm, thoughtful, prayerful meditation on the Word to extract its deepest nourishment.

A T Pierson adds that...

Partial examination will result in partial views of truth, which are necessarily imperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God... (He once wrote) When I read this passage for the hundreth time, the following idea came to me.

PRINCIPLE: If the plain sense of the Scripture you are studying makes good sense, then do not seek to make some other sense out of it or the final interpretation could be complete nonsense and totally unrelated to God's intending meaning. Take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and self-evident and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

This preceding principle is my paraphrase from David Cooper's widely quoted statement that...

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. (David L. Cooper, The World’s Greatest Library Graphically Illustrated. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970)

Notice the important phrase, studied in the light of related passages. This is the biblical equivalent of a "safety net." In the same way that trapeze artists performing on the high-wire are protected by a net below which catches them in the event of a fall, comparing Scripture with Scripture (Principle #5) provides a doctrinal "safety net" which serves to prevent the interpreter from "falling" into an inconsistent understanding or interpretation.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

You might be asking yourself "Why is there so much emphasis on literal interpretation, for it seems so logical that the safest interpretation is that which remains closest to the original text." To answer this important question would require a review of the church's approach to interpretation over the past 2000 years which would require much more time than can be given in this brief overview. In lieu of a more in depth explanation, the highly respected evangelical author Dwight Pentecost offers the following succinct analysis of the history of Biblical interpretation...

It is to be noted that all interpretation began with the literal interpretation of Ezra. This literal method became the basic method of Rabbinism. It was the accepted method used by the New Testament in the interpretation of the Old and was so employed by the Lord and His apostles. This literal method was the method of the ("Early") Church Fathers until the time of Origen (ca. 185-254 AD) when the allegorical method (Ed: Refers to a method in which one looks for hidden or secret meaning, rather than accepting the plain meaning of text), which had been devised to harmonize Platonic philosophy and Scripture, was adopted. Augustine's influence brought this allegorizing method into the established and brought an end to all true exegesis (Ed: primary concern in exegesis is an understanding of the text). This system continued until the Reformation. At the Reformation the literal method of interpretation was solidly established and, in spite of the attempts of the church to bring all interpretation into conformity to an adopted creed, literal interpretation continued and became the basis on which all true exegesis rests. It would be concluded, then, from the study of the history of interpretation that the original and accepted method of interpretation was the literal method, which was used by the Lord, the greatest Interpreter, and any other method was introduced to promote heterodoxy (quality of holding to unorthodox doctrines). Therefore the literal method must be accepted as the basic method for right interpretation in any field of doctrine today. (Pentecost, Dwight: Things to Come, page 32-33) (See also the Rise of Allegorical Interpretation)

Interestingly, Pentecost goes on to add the caveat that just because one holds to a literal approach does not necessarily guarantee that they will arrive at an accurate interpretation. For example, witness the Rabbinical teachings that espoused a literal approach and yet were far removed from accurate interpretation in many Scriptures, not to mention the writings of many of the otherwise "literalist" reformers who often approached apocalyptic (uses symbols that communicate absolute truth) or prophetic literature (the four fully apocalyptic books are Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation) with an allegorical approach, reasoning that the prophetic genre called for a non-literal approach.

William Tyndale who was martyred for translating the Bible into English wisely wrote...

Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave thou canst never err nor go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.

J Gresham Machen wrote...

I hold that the Bible is essentially a plain book. Common sense is a wonderful help in reading it.

Bernard Ramm says

We use the word 'literal' in its dictionary sense: '...the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical' (Webster's New International Dictionary) (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, page 119.) (Bolding added)

Dr Charles Ryrie reasons that...

If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought.

We must correctly hear God's Word,
Or we will be misled;
We must give careful thought and prayer
To what the Author said. —Hess

As Andy Woods explains...

literalism resists going beyond what is written. Because literalism resists “going beyond the facts,” when interpreting a given text, literal interpreters resist the temptation to import foreign ideas from outside the text. A classic example of going beyond what the text says is the ancient interpretation that the four rivers in Genesis 2, the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates (Ge 2:11, 13, 14), represent the body, soul, spirit, and mind (One need only examine the works of Philo to find numerous examples of such a hermeneutical methodology.). Such an idea is not readily apparent from studying the text in Genesis 2. One must go outside the text of Genesis 2 and bring into it foreign concepts in order to arrive at this conclusion. (Paper by Andy Woods) (Bolding added)

Unless the immediate context clearly indicates otherwise, one should always seek to interpret the text literally, in its straightforward, natural, ordinary, usual, normal, meaning, just as you would any other writing, accepting the words at face value without the imposition of hidden or symbolic meanings.

For example, it is not intellectually honest or consistent to simply classify the book of Revelation as "prophecy" (which of course it is) and based on that classification to change the rules of interpretation from literal to allegorical/symbolical as does the following commentator...

A failure to take full account of [the apocalyptic or prophetic] feature has led to some of the most outlandish teachings on this book by some whose rule of interpretation is "literal, unless absurd." Though this is a good rule when dealing with literature written in a literal genre, it is the exact opposite in the case of apocalyptic literature, where symbolism is the rule, and literalism the exception. (Gregg, S: Revelation Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Page 11. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997)

Some attack the principle of literal interpretation by stating that this method denies the Bible's use of figurative language (including types, symbols, figures of speech, etc). Dr Charles Ryrie counters such fallacious arguments noting specifically that literalism

does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation… (Literal interpretation) might also be called plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech.

E R Craven adds that...

The Literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny the great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted–that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded. (Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Moore, E., Craven, E. R., & Woods, J. H. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures : Revelation NY: Scribner, 1872 - now available on Logos Bible Software)

Apocalyptic literature does not dictate
that one dismiss normative interpretation
in favor of "symbolic conjecture".

Why is this critical? Because the symbolic approach always raises the question "Whose symbolic interpretation is correct?" The answer of course is that no one knows who is correct because there are so many symbolic interpretations to choose from - a veritable "interpretative quagmire" ("soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot; a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position" - Webster)!

No two allegorical/symbolic commentators hold the same interpretative position except in a handful of areas, resulting in a frustrated student who walks away discouraged and even more confused then before reading the commentary. This fact alone disqualifies a non-literal approach because it has factually demonstrated its bankruptcy in conveying a reproducible message from God. In effect, the symbolic or allegorical approach literally (pun intended) makes the book of Revelation unknowable.

Perhaps you are still asking why should one insist on a literal or "normal" interpretation of all of Scripture? Couch explains that there are at least three reasons offered by who are committed to a normal reading of Scripture:

First, the obvious purpose of language is to enable effective communication between intelligent beings. Words have meaning and in their normal usage are intended to be understood. . . . God is the originator of language. When He spoke audibly to man, He expected man to understand Him and respond accordingly. Likewise, when God speaks to man through the inspired writings of His apostles and prophets, He expects man to understand and respond accordingly. . . .

A second reason for a normal reading of Scripture concerns the historical fulfillment of prophecy. All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament that have been fulfilled to date have been fulfilled literally. . . . Thus, . . . all prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled literally.

A third reason concerns logic. If an interpreter does not use the normal, customary, literal method of interpreting Scripture, interpretation is given over to the unconstrained imagination and presuppositions of the interpreter. (Couch, M: Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. Page 36-37. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) (Bolding added)

LESS IS BETTER

Another key advantage of literal interpretation is that it is minimal interpretation and thus superimposes the barest "interpretive layer" or "interpretative bias" on the inspired communication from God.

As the highly respected literalist commentator Henry Morris has well said...

The best interpretation of a historical record is no interpretation but simply letting the divine Author of the record say what He says and assuming He says what He means. (Quoted from one of the few well done, literal, non-confusing commentaries on the Revelation entitled "The Revelation Record")

The greater an author's interpretative bias, the greater the danger that the commentator will add to or subtract from the meaning originally intended by God, a grave error John warns against writing:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (See notes Revelation 22:18-19, cp Pr 30:5, 6, Dt 4:2, 12:32)

Literal interpretation is occasionally criticized as leading to "ridiculous" conclusions. Bernard Ramm addresses this accusation leveled at those who adhere to the literalist approach, writing that...

To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a "wooden literalism," nor to a "letterism," nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any "mechanical" understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation which includes "tacit" understanding. (Ramm, B: Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed. Page 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970)

In other words Literal interpretation does pay attention to variations in the style of the text and thus maintains a consistency of interpretation which is driven by the text itself, not the interpretative bias of the commentator:  For example it is often stated that evangelicals who hold to a literal one thousand year reign of Christ based on Revelation 20, also demand that every single passage is to be interpreted literally without exception. This is an unfair and weak attempt to discredit the literal approach, because in fact even strict literalists clearly accept that if the language of a given passage is clearly symbolic, it is to be governed by the laws relating to symbols. If the passage is clearly figurative, it also must be interpreted based on the laws dealing with figures of speech.

It is also interesting to note that even those who espouse a symbolic/allegorical approach to the Revelation clearly rely on a normal literal approach in many if not most passages in John's great apocalyptic work. For example, when John writes that he "was on the island that is called Patmos" (Revelation 1:9) virtually all commentators, symbolic and literal, agree that John was literally on an island named Patmos! When the symbolic/allegorical authors encounter other passages that are not so easily interpreted, they jettison the literal approach in favor of speculation.

As Tony Garland quips...

This "dual hermeneutic" is employed much like the gearshift in an automobile. On the major "freeway" of the gospel text, they generally stay in literal gear. But when a prophetic "off-ramp" or doctrinal "mountain" looms ahead, they shift into a non-literal gear. This inconsistency leads to all manner of confusion and allows for the most amazing conclusions which are often in complete contradiction to the plain meaning of the text! (A Testimony of Jesus Christ - Interpreting Symbols)

Smith adds that

Much Bible study is done to verify men's preconceptions, since all of us bring our personal opinions and biases with us...

If God has really spoken through the pen of the human author, let's not try to rewrite the script. Proof-texting, i.e., quoting only those biblical texts which are useful to prove our own preconceived opinions and theological biases, is a favorite trick of the cultists and only succeeds in confusing the issue...

We should view the Scripture just as we would any other writing, accepting the words at face value without the imposition of hidden meanings. This is the general rule, to which there are notable and recognizable exceptions, such as allegory (see Rise of Allegorical Interpretation) and typology (See discussion of Typology). Figures of speech are to be interpreted in the literal significance that the figure conveys. (Ed note: Read that sentence again)...

When the Scripture says, "Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (Red = present imperative = command to do this continually; see notes 1Th 5:16; 17; 18), we don't have a problem of interpreting the language, but rather one of how to apply the truth. We accept the literal meaning of the words. How we can do what it commands we must discover in the context :

"Do not quench the Spirit," [for he is our strengthener to enable] "do not despise prophesying," [for preaching and teaching are the vehicle he uses to encourage us] "but test everything;" [for our thinking is askew and we are being fooled by an enemy if we are defeated on these issues] "hold fast what is good," [for that is what will save the day] "abstain from every form of evil" (1Th 5:19, 20, 21, 22-see notes 1Thes 5:19; 20; 21; 22). Abstain, because indulging in evil gets us into trouble.

The punch line is 1Th 5:24, "He Who calls you is faithful, and He will do it." (note) This assures us that the Lord is active in our behalf to enable us to do all He commands. So we take language in its literal sense when it is used like this. But when we read, "I am the vine, you are the branches" (Jn 15:5), we recognize figurative language and seek the literal meaning of the figure. As we observe the context we read also, "Abide in me, and I in you" (Jn 15:5) and easily recognize that our Lord is talking about a shared life, since a branch is a living part of the vine, receiving the flow of life from it. (Basics of Bible Interpretation)

Horatio Bonar echoed the plea for adherence to literal interpretation writing...

I feel a greater certainty as to the literal interpretation of the whole Word of God-historical, doctrinal, prophetical. "Literal, if possible," is, I believe, the only maxim that will carry you right through the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.

John Peter Lange has an interesting explanation of a literalist (normal, plain language) versus a spiritualist (mystical) writing that...

The Literalist is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, and that which is manifestly figuratively being so regarded. The position of the Spiritualist is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that certain portions are to be normally interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a mystical sense. The terms properly expressive of the schools are normal and mystical." (Lange, John Peter: A Commentary on the Holy Scripture: Revelation, p. 98) (Bolding added)

In short, the wise reader is advised to look for the clear teaching, not some mystical or "hidden" meaning or special "code" which needs to be deciphered! It is truly remarkable what we can discover when we let God say what He has already said and He gives us eyes and ears to see and hear spiritual truth.

Unless the Scripture calls for you to do so (e.g., in Ga 4:24 Paul says "this is allegorically speaking" clearly allowing for an allegorical interpretation), strongly resist any attempt to allegorize (symbolic and non-literal representation of truth) or spiritualize the meaning of the passage. (Click interesting discussion on literal interpretation)

Webster has some interesting thoughts on the meaning of "literal" especially as it relates to accurate interpretation, noting that the meaning is "not figurative or metaphorical", " free from exaggeration or embellishment (the "literal" truth)", "characterized by a concern mainly with facts" and "reproduced word for word, exact, verbatim".

The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms writes that...

"Regarding interpretation, literalism generally attempts to understand the author’s intent by pursuing the most plain, obvious meaning of the text as judged by the interpreter. In translation, the attempt is made to convey with utmost accuracy through the words of another language the actual meaning of the biblical text." (Grenz, S., Guretzki, D., & Nordling, C. F. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press)"

Learn to recognize figures of speech (especially common in poetic and prophetic passages) and to interpret them in the same way they are used in normal speech. In other words, interpret figures of speech in the literal significance that the figure conveys. If Jesus calls Himself a "Vine", interpret the meaning of the passage in light of the specific meaning of the figure of a "vine".

Listen to the great reformer ("Sola Scriptura") Martin Luther who insisted that the literal sense...

alone holds the ground in trouble and trial, conquers the gates of hell [Mt 16:18] along with sin and death, and triumphs for the praise and glory of God. Allegory, however, is too often uncertain, unreliable, and by no means safe for supporting faith. Too frequently it depends upon human guesswork and opinion; and if one leans on it, one will lean on a staff made of Egyptian reed (Ezek 29:6]. (Luther wrote) When I was a monk, I was an expert in allegories. I allegorized everything. But after lecturing on the Epistle to the Romans I came to have knowledge of Christ. For therein I saw that Christ is no allegory and I learned to know what Christ is."

(Luther wrote that) Allegories are empty speculations and as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.... Origen's allegories are not worth so much dirt... To allegorize is to juggle with Scripture... Allegorizing may degenerate into a mere monkey game.... Allegories are awkward, absurd, invented, obsolete, loose rags." (Needless to say this great reformer did not like allegorical interpretation after experiencing his new birth!)

John Calvin (1509-1564) known as "one of the greatest interpreters of the Bible" like Martin Luther also rejected allegorical interpretation describing these works as "frivolous games" and declaring that the early church father, Origen (and many others) were guilty of "torturing the Scripture, in every possible sense, from the true sense". Calvin stressed the Christological nature of Scripture, the grammatical-historical method, exegesis rather than eisegesis, the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, and a balanced approach to typology (See discussion of Typology).

John MacArthur gives the following example of non-literal interpretation from a  conference he was attending...

where one of the speakers talked about John 11, the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. This was his interpretation: “Lazarus is a symbol of the church, and what we have here is a vivid picture of the rapture of the believers. The resurrection of Lazarus is the church going through the rapture.” Afterward, this speaker came up and said, “John, did you ever see that in the text before?” I tried to be honest but diplomatic: “You know, I doubt that anyone has ever seen that in the text before. You are the first.” There are passages in Scripture that are symbolic. There are passages that give us types and pictures. But beware of interpretations that read symbols and pictures into the text that simply are not there. (MacArthur, J. How to Get the Most from God's Word. Dallas, TX: Word Pub. 1997)

John Calvin exhorts us to know...

that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions those pretended expositions which lead us away from the natural meaning.

M R. DeHaan of Our Daily Bread fame admonishes saints to...

Be on guard against any tampering with the Word, whether disguised as a search for truth, or a scholarly attempt at apparently hidden meanings.

The principle of reading the Bible literally is brought out be the following interchange between Mary Queen of Scots and John Knox.

The Queen asked Knox

“Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall judge?”

To which Knox replied

“Believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word: and further than the word teacheth you, ye shall neither believe the one nor the other. The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrarious to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546) arrived at an interesting conclusion declaring...

I have observed that all the heresies and errors have arisen not from Scripture’s own plain statements, but when that plainness of statement is ignored, and men follow the Scholastic arguments of their own brains.

William Tyndale (1492-1536) who was best known for his translation of the New Testament into English (for which he was murdered!), stressed literal interpretation writing that...

Scripture has but one sense, which is the literal sense.

John Wesley adds that...

The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts. But in that case, the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly...Try all things by the written word, and let all bow down before it. You are in danger of fanaticism every hour, if you depart ever so little from Scripture; yea, or from the plain, literal meaning of an text, taken in connection with the context.

As a general rule if you or someone arrives at an interpretation on a text that no one has ever described, you need to consider that interpretation suspect.

INTERPRETATION
OF
PROPHETIC
PASSAGES

A few more thoughts on the literal approach in prophetic passages:

In interpretation of prophecy, the safest, simplest and most sane approach is take the text as saying what it means and meaning what it says. In a sense the literal approach assumes that the best interpretation is no interpretation. For example, in the prophesy of the Revelation, one assumes that John desired to communicate to his reader and therefore wrote plainly, saying exactly what he wanted to say (under the inspiration of the Spirit of course) and what he believed to be the most effective manner of communicating that truth to all generations. As alluded to above, the literal plain sense approach does not ignore the fact that prophecy often uses symbols and figures of speech. The point to emphasize is that the interpretation of such figures and symbols is not to be left up to the reader's imagination or ingenuity. (Click for an example of a somewhat imaginative, non-literal interpretation of Revelation 20) Figures of speech must be defined and explained unambiguously, either aided by the immediate context, the broader context or comparison with other similar passages. If one determines to approach a prophetic book such as the Revelation with a literal mindset, they will find that much of the difficulty in understanding is effectively eliminated. As someone has well said

"The book of Revelation isn't hard to understand--it's hard to believe!"

One of the main reasons why so many commentaries resort to an allegorical interpretation of prophecies like the Revelation and Daniel is that they find the literal meaning of the prophecies difficult to accept and attempt to explain them in some less offensive manner!

Tony Garland in his excellent, highly recommended commentary on the Revelation (free online at: A Testimony of Jesus Christ) writes that there are two main approaches to interpretation as they relate to prophecy,  (Quoting Ramm)

Among evangelicals there are generally two major camps regarding how prophetic passages should be read. Amillennialists will generally allegorize large portions of the prophetic Word, especially passages that speak of the Second Advent of Christ and the establishment of the one thousand year literal Davidic kingdom. In contrast, premillennialists, following the teaching of the early church, treat the Second Coming with the same literal hermeneutic as they would the First Coming of Jesus. They hold that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, should be understood literally from a normal reading unless typology (See discussion of Typology) or poetry is used. And even then, premillennialists believe that "literalness" is implied behind the figure of speech or illustration used. (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, page 119) (Bolding added)

The most serious charge that can be leveled against non-literal interpretation is that of perverting the promises of God. God's promises, both in the OT and NT, were given to specific recipients using words which they understood in the context in which they lived and in which the promises were given. When a nonliteral view of these passages is adopted, this robs the original recipients of the promises as God gave them:

Adopting a nonliteral view of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies raises some disturbing questions:

What did those prophecies mean to those to whom they were addressed?

If prophecies seemingly addressed to Israel really apply to the church (which did not exist at that time), did God give revelation that failed to reveal?

And if those prophecies were meant to apply symbolically to the church, why were they addressed to Israel?

What meaning could such prophecies have in their historical settings?

Ironically, many who spiritualize Old Testament prophecies reject the futurist interpretation of Revelation because it allegedly robs the book of its meaning for those to whom it was written. Yet they do the very same thing with the Old Testament kingdom prophecies. (MacArthur, John: Revelation 12-22: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2000)

God's promises involve both ends of the communication channel: the things God said and what those who received His promises understood them to mean in the original context. It is not permissible, after the fact, to make what God said mean something different which would have been entirely foreign to those who originally received His word. Allegorization and spiritualization do just that. (Garland, Anthony: A Testimony of Jesus Christ free online)

Mal Couch adds that...

A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage. Proponents of a consistent, literal reading of Scripture prefer the phrase a normal reading of Scripture to establish the difference between literalism and letterism. (Mal Couch, General Editor, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002)

Many depart from the simplicity of the "plain sense" rule of  literal interpretation reasoning something like...

If the plain sense does not fit my theological system, then I will seek some other sense, lest I should end up agreeing with the literalists!

And thus one reads an avowed amillennialist (interprets 1000 in Revelation 20 figuratively/allegorically not literally) named Hamilton who states...

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures (Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1981)

Or it's like the husband busily perusing his Bible and obviously annoyed with his wife's attempts to converse, to which  he finally exclaims in frustration...

Don't bother me. I'm looking for a verse of Scripture to back up one of my preconceived notions!

Are you a "literalist"? See the interesting "test" at Middletown Bible Church website -  Do You Interpret the Bible Literally?  Six Tests to See if You Do

Related Resources
(Not listed in order of importance - Be a Berean - Acts 17:11-note)

1) Hermeneutics - Study of Interpretation of Scriptures - Pdf  by Stephen R Lewis  -

Excellent Material - Highly Recommended. Download the Pdf to your desktop so you can refer to it easily in the future, as the 150+ pages are filled with solid material that relates to accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Includes an interesting synopsis of the history of how Scripture has been interpreted since the first century AD, I would recommend the synopsis by Dr Stephen R Lewis (see page 22). You may be surprised at what you discover about the so called Early Church Fathers and their slide into allegorical interpretation which even such highly regarded men as Augustine (354-430 AD) et al championed and which sadly led to the allegorical method becoming the favored method of Scripture interpretation for almost 1000 years (the "dark ages" - perhaps herein lies a clue as to why they were so "dark"!) As one writer has said "the Middle Ages was a vast desert so far as biblical interpretation is concerned" (Mickelsen).

2) Literal Interpretation: A Plea for Consensus by Elliot Johnson

3) From Tony Garland at Spiritandtruth.org...

a). Art and Science of Interpretation
b). The Rise of Allegorical Interpretation
c). Understanding Symbols and Figures
d). Understanding Numbers

4) Issues in Hermeneutics from Andy Woods at Spiritandtruth.org...

a). Grammatico Historical Method
b). Matter Of Genre

5) Basics of Bible Interpretation  by Bob Smith

a). Words of Life
b).  Is Anybody Listening?
c). The Goal of Bible Study
d). Interpretive Principles
e). The Interpretive Process
f). Bible Study Approaches
g). Figures of Speech
h). The Language of Analogy (especially Parables)
i). Allegories and Types
j). The Greeks Had a Word for It
k). Helps on Hebrew
l). Getting It All Together

6) History of Interpretation by Michael Patton - Audio and Video only

7) The Bible: Understanding Its Message J. Hampton Keathley, III

8) Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

9) Contemporary Problems in Biblical Interpretation by John Walvoord

10) Interpreting Prophecy Today by John Walvoord

Part 1: Basic Considerations in Interpreting Prophecy

Part 2: The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

Part 3: The New Testament Doctrine of the Kingdom

Part 4: The Kingdom of God in the New Testament (continued)