Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
I would like to quote from messages W.L. spoke in Taipei during the 1950s. I'll quote from the online version of the book called ON KNOWING THE BIBLE. It is a little book of four chapters. The fourth one is really interesting, and if anyone would read it will probably conclude that W.L. departed many times from the principles of interpretations that he himself presented about 60 years ago.
“We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout.”
I think many would agree on this point, too. In the same passage, a mixing of spiritual and literal interpretation should be avoided. How much confusion could have been avoided if the person who spoke these thinks had applied these same principles of interpretation.
|
I noted this in my study on Psalms. Lee held the psalmist to a different set of standards. When King Agag got hacked to bits by the prophet Samuel, Agag signified the flesh. Samuel's violent zeal, therefore, was approved.
But when the psalmist pursued his enemies and "beat them small" (18:37) he was being uncharitable, and not following the NT economy, so-called, and blessing his enemy. So the first got interpreted spiritually, and was approved for his being absolute, and the second interpreted literally, and condemned.
I don't think Lee would have gotten away with this in a seminary paper. But as the self-styled MOTA his every word was divinely-inspired. Even if his various inspirations were contradictory.