By J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, 1958

Chapter One:

THE METHODS OF INTERPRETATION

Introduction:

No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The adoption of different methods of interpretation has produced the variant eschatological positions and accounts for the divergent views within a system that confront the student of prophecy. The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulation and posttribulation rapturists are hermeneutuical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation.

The basic issue between premillennialists and amillennialists is clearly drawn by Allis, who writes:

One of the most marked features of Premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is the insistent claim of its advocates that only when interpreted literally is the bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as "spiritualizers" or "allegorizers" those who do not interpret the bible with the same degree of literalness as they do. None have made this charge more pointedly than the Dispensationalists. The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset.1

When Allis acknowledges that "Literal interpretation has always been a marked feature of Premillennialism"2 he is in agreement with Feinberg, who writes:

. . It can be shown that the reason the early Church was premillennial was traceable to its interpretation of the Word in a literal manner, whereas the cause of the departure from this view in later centuries of the history of the Church is directly attributable to a change in method of interpretation beginning with Origen in particular.3

Hamilton says:

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. That was the kind of a Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promises. That was the kind of a kingdom that the Sadducees were talking about when they ridiculed the idea of the resurrection of the body, drawing from our Lord the clearest statement of the characteristics of the future age that we have in the New Testament, when He told them that they erred "not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God" (Mt. 22:39) . . . the Jews were looking for just such a kingdom as that expected by those premillennialists who speak of the Jews holding a preeminent place in an earthly Jewish kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in Jerusalem.4

He is thus acknowledging that the basic difference between himself, an amillennialist, and a premillennialist is not whether the Scriptures teach such an earthly kingdom as the premillennialist teaches, but how the Scriptures that teach just such an earthly kingdom are to be interpreted. Allis admits that "the Old Testament prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be regarded as having been yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present age."5 Therefore, the antecedent to any Eschatology is the establishment of the basic method of interpretation to be employed throughout. This is well observed by Pieters, who writes:

The question whether the Old Testament prophecies concerning the people of God must be interpreted in their ordinary sense, as other Scriptures are interpreted, or can properly be applied to the Christian Church, is called the question of the spiritualization of prophecy. This is one of the major problems of biblical interpretation and confronts everyone who makes a serious study of the Word of God. It is one of the chief keys to the difference of opinion between Premillenarians and the mass of Christian scholars. The former reject such spiritualization, the latter employ it; and AS LONG AS THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT THE DEBATE IS INTERMINABLE AND FRUITLESS [emphasis mine].6

A. THE PROBLEM. If Rutgers be correct when he says of the premillennialist: "I regard their interpretation of Scripture as the fundamental error,"7 and if the acknowledged difference between premillennialism and amillennialism rests on the basic proposition of the method to be used in interpreting Scriptures, the fundamental problem to be studied at the outset of any consideration of Eschatology is that of the hermeneutics of prophecy. It is the purpose of this study to examine the important methods currently advocated as the proper way to interpret Scripture so as to have a clear understanding of the difference in the methods, to study the history of the doctrine so as to be able to trace the divergent methods to their source, and to outline the rules to be employed in the interpretation so as to be able to apply correctly the established method of interpretation.

B. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY. "The primary need for a system of hermeneutics is to ascertain the meaning of the Word of God."8

(Bernard Ramm). It is obvious that such widely divergent views as premillennialism and amillennialism and pretribulation and posttribulation rapturism cannot all be right. Since the interpreter is not handling a book of human origin, but the Word of God, he must be equipped with an accurate method of interpretation or error will be the necessary result of his study. The fact that the Word of God cannot be correctly interpreted apart from a correct method of and sound rules for interpretation gives the study its supreme importance.

While many diverse methods of interpreting the Scriptures have been propounded during the course of the history of interpretation,9 today there are but two methods of interpretation which have a vital effect on Eschatology: the allegorical and the

grammatical-historical methods. The literal method is generally held to be synonymous with the grammatical-historical method and will be so used throughout this discussion. These two methods will be considered in detail.

I. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD

An ancient method of interpretation which has had a current revival is the allegorical method.

A. The definition of the allegorical method. Angus-Green define an allegory as:

Any statement of supposed facts which admits of a literal interpretation, and yet requires or justly admits a moral or figurative one, is called an allegory. It is to narrative or story what trope is to single words, adding to the literal meaning of the terms employed a moral or spiritual one. Sometimes the allegory is "pure," that is, contains no direct reference to the application of it, as in the history of the Prodigal Son. Sometimes it is mixed, as in Ps. 80, where it is plainly intimated (verse 17) that the Jews are the people whom the vine is intended t represent.10

Ramm defines the allegorical method thus: "Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense."11
In this method the historical import is either denied or ignored and the emphasis is placed entirely on a secondary sense so that the original words or events have little or no significance. Fritsch summarizes it thus:

According to this method the literal and historical sense of scripture is completely ignored, and every word and event is made an allegory of some kind either to escape theological difficulties or to maintain certain peculiar religious views . . .12

It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning.

B. The dangers of the allegorical method. The allegorical method is fraught with dangers which render it unacceptable to the interpreter of the Word.

1. The first great danger of the allegorical method is that it does not interpret scripture. Terry says:

. . . it will be noticed at once that its habit is to disregard the common signification of words and give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As a system, therefore, it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and laws.13

Angus-Green express the same danger when they write:

There is . . . unlimited scope for fancy, if once the principle be admitted, and the only basis of the exposition is found in the mind of the expositor. The scheme can yield no "interpretation," properly so called, although possibly some valuable truths may be illustrated.14

2. The above quotation suggests, also, a second danger in the allegorical method: the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter's doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, or a host of other factors. Jerome -. . . complains that the faultiest style of teaching is to corrupt the meaning of scripture, and to drag its reluctant utterance to our own will, making scriptural mysteries out of our own imaginations.15

Farar adds:

. . . When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound and foot to the caprice of the interpreter.16

3. A third great danger in the allegorical method is that one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested. The above author states:

He can be sure of absolutely nothing except what is dictated to him by the Church, and in all ages the authority of "the Church" has been falsely claimed for the presumptuous tyranny of false prevalent opinions.17

Ramm adds:

. . . to state that the principle meaning of the Bible is a second-sense meaning, and that the principle method of interpreting is "spiritualizing," is to open the door to almost uncontrolled speculation and imagination. For this reason we have insisted that the "control" in interpretation is the literal method.18

That these dangers exist and that the method of interpretation is used to pervert Scripture is admitted by Allis, who is himself an advocate of the allegorical method in the field of Eschatology, when he says:

Whether the figurative or "spiritual" interpretation of a given passage is justified or not depends solely upon whether it gives the true meaning. If it is used to empty words of their plain and obvious meaning, to read out of them what is clearly intended by them, then allegorizing or spiritualizing is a term of reproach which is well merited.19

Thus, the great dangers inherent in this system are that it takes away the authority of Scripture, leaves us without any basis on which interpretations may be tested, reduced scripture to what seems reasonable to the interpreter, and, as a result, makes true interpretation of Scripture impossible.

C. The New Testament use of allegory. In order to justify the use of the allegorical method it is often argued that the New Testament itself employs this method and thus it must be a justifiable method of interpretation.

1. In the first place, reference is frequently made to Galatians 4:21-31, where Paul himself is said to use the allegorical method. On this usage of allegory, Farrar -. . .of allegories which in any way resemble those of Philo or of the Fathers and the Schoolmen, I can find in the New Testament but one [Gal. 4:21-31]. It may be merely intended as an "arguementum ad hominem;" it is not at all essential to the general argument; it has not a particle of "demonstrative" force; in any case it leaves untouched the actual history. But whatever view we take of it, the occurrence of one such allegory in the epistle of St. Paul no more sanctions the universal application of the method than a few New Testament allusions to the Haggada compel us to accept the accumulations of the Midrashim; or a few quotations from Greek poets prove the divine authority of all Pagan literature. . .20

Gilbert, in the same vein, concludes:

Since Paul explained one historical event of the Old Testament allegorically, it seems likely that he admitted the possibility of applying the principle of allegory elsewhere; but the fact that his letters show no other unmistakable illustration obviously suggests either that he did not feel himself competent to unfold the allegorical meaning of Scripture, or, what is more probably, that he was better satisfied on the whole to give his readers the plain primary sense of the text.21

Concerning the use of this method by other New Testament writers
Farrar concludes:

The better Jewish theory, purified in Christianity, takes the teachings of the Old Dispensation literally, but sees in them, as did St. Paul, the shadow and germ of future developments. Allegory, though once used by St. Paul by way of passing illustration, is unknown to the other apostles, and is never sanctioned by Christ.22

It must be carefully observed that in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul is not using an allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament, but was explaining an allegory. These are two entirely different things. Scripture abounds in allegories, whether types, symbols, or parables. These are accepted and legitimate media of communication of thought. They do not call for an allegorical method of interpretation, which would deny the literal or historical antecedent and use the allegory simply as a springboard for the interpreter's imagination. They do call for a special type of hermaneutics, which will be considered later. But the use of allegories is not a justification for the allegorical method of interpretation. It would be concluded that the usage in Galatians of the Old Testament would be an example of interpretation of an allegory and would not justify the universal application of the allegorical method to all scripture.

2. A second argument used to justify the allegorical method is the New Testament usage made of types. It is recognized that the New Testament makes typical application of the Old. On this basis it is argued that the New Testament used the allegorical method of interpretation, contending that the interpretation and application of types is an allegorical method of interpretation. Allis argues:

While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers.23

In reply to the accusation that because one interprets types he is using the allegorical method, it must be emphasized that the interpretation of types is not the same as allegorical interpretation. The efficacy of the type depends on the literal interpretation of the literal antecedent. In order to convey truth concerning the spiritual realm, with which realm we are not familiar, there must be instruction in a realm with which we are familiar, so that, by a transference of what is literally true in the one realm, we may learn what is true in the other realm. There must be a literal parallelism between the type and the anti type for the type to be of any value. The individual who allegorizes a type will never arrive at a true interpretation. The only way to discern the meaning of the type is through a transference of literal ideas from the natural to the spiritual realm. Chafer well writes:

In the study of allegories of various kinds, namely, parables, types and symbols, the interpreter must be careful not to treat plain statements of Scripture as is demanded of language couched in figurative expressions. A truth already expressed will bear repetition at this point: there is all the difference possible in interpreting a scripture allegory, on the one hand, and the allegorizing of a plain scripture on the other hand.24

It is concluded then, that the Scriptural use of types does not give sanction to the allegorical method of interpretation.

II. The Literal Method

In direct opposition to the allegorical method of interpretation stands the literal or grammatical-historical method.

A. The definition of the literal method. The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.25 It is called the grammatical-historical method to emphasize the fact that the meaning is to be determined by both grammatical and historical considerations. Ramm defines the method thus: The customary, socially-acknowledged designation of a word is the literal meaning of that word.

The "literal" meaning of a word is the basic, customary, social designation of that word. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or expression is one that arises after the literal designation and is dependent upon it for its existence. To interpret literally means nothing more or less than to interpret in terms of normal, usual, designation. When the manuscript alters its designation the interpreter immediately shifts his method of interpreting.27

B. The evidence for the literal method. Strong evidence can be presented to support the literal method of interpretation. Ramm gives a comprehensive summary. He says:

In defense of the literal approach it may be argued:

a. That the literal meaning of sentences is the normal approach in all languages . .

b. That all secondary meanings of documents, parables, types, allegories and symbols, depend for their very existence on the previous literal meaning of the terms.

c. That the greater part of the bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally.

d. That the literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories and types; but if the nature of the sentence so demands, it readily yields to the second sense.

e. That this method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man.

f. That this method is the only one consonant with the nature of inspiration. The plenary inspiration of the bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided men into truth and away from error. In this process the Spirit of God used language and the units of language (as meaning, not as sound) are words and thoughts. The thought is the thread that strings the words together. Therefore, our very exegesis must commence with a study of words and grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful speech.28

Inasmuch as God gave the Word of God as a revelation to men, it would be expected that His revelation would be given in such exact and specific terms that His thoughts would be accurately conveyed and understood when interpreted according to the laws of grammar and speech. Such presumptive evidence favors the literal interpretation, for an allegorical method of interpretation would cloud the meaning of the message delivered by God to men. The fact that the Scriptures continually point to literal interpretations of what was formerly written adds evidence as to the method to be employed in interpreting the Word. Perhaps one of the strongest evidences for the literal method is the use the New Testament makes of the Old Testament. When the old testament is used in the new it is used only in a literal sense. One need only study the prophecies which were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, in His life, His ministry and His death, to establish that fact. No prophecy which has been completely fulfilled has been fulfilled any way but literally.29

Though a prophecy may be cited in the New Testament to show that a certain event is a partial fulfillment of that prophecy (as was done in Matthew 2:17-18), or to show that an event is in harmony with God's established program (as was done in Acts 15), it does not necessitate a non-literal fulfillment or deny a future complete fulfillment, for such applications of prophecy do not exhaust the fulfillment of it. Therefore such references to prophecy do not argue for a non-literal method.

From these considerations it may be concluded that there is evidence to support the validity of the literal method of interpretation.

Further evidence for the literal method will be presented in the study of the history of interpretation which is to follow.

C. The advantages of the literal method.
There are certain advantages to this method in preference to the allegorical method. Ramm summarizes some of these by saying:

(a) It grounds interpretation in "fact". It seeks to establish itself in objective data - grammar, logic, etymology, history, geography, archaeology, theology . .

(b) It exercises a control over interpretation that experimentation does for the scientific method . . . "justification is the control on interpretations." All that do not measure up to the canons of the literal-cultural critical method are to be rejected or placed under suspect.

In addition to this the method offers the only reliable check on the constant threat to place double-sense interpretation upon the scripture. . .

(c) It has had the greatest success in opening up the Word of God. Exegesis did not start in earnest till the church was a millennium and a half old. With the literalism of Luther and Calvin the light of Scripture literally flamed up. . . This method is the honored method of the highest scholastic tradition in conservative Protestantism. It is the method of Bruce, Lightfoot, Zahn, A.T. Robertson, Ellicott, Machen Cremer, Terry, Farrar, Lange, Green, Oehler, Schaff, Sampey Wilson, Moule, Perowne, Henderson Boradus, Stuart - to name but a few typical exegetes.30

In addition to the above advantages it may be added that --

(d) it gives us a basic authority by which interpretations may be tested.

The allegorical method, which depends on the rationalistic approach of the interpreter, or conformity to a predetermined theological system, leaves one without a basic authoritative test.
In the literal method Scripture may be compared with Scripture, which as the inspired Word of God, is authoritative and the standard by which all truth is to be tested. Related to this we may observe that -

(e) It delivers us from both reason and mysticism as the requisites to interpretation.
One does not have to depend upon intellectual training or abilities, nor upon the development of mystical perception, but rather upon the understanding of what is written in its generally accepted sense. Only on such a basis can the average individual understand or interpret the scriptures for himself.

D. the literal method and figurative language. It is recognized by all that the bible abounds in figurative language. On this basis it is often argued that the use of figurative language demands a figurative interpretation. However, figures of speech are used as means of revealing literal truth. What is literally true in one realm, with which we are familiar is brought over, literally into another realm, with which we may not be familiar, in order to teach us truths in that unfamiliar realm. This relation between literal truth and figurative language is well illustrated by Gigot:

If the words are employed in their natural and primitive signification, the sense which they express is the proper literal sense; whereas, if they are used with a figurative and derived meaning, the sense, though still literal, is usually called the metaphorical or figurative sense. For example, when we read in St. John 1:6, "There was a man whose name was John," it is plain that the terms employed here are taken properly and physically, for the writer speaks of a real man whose real name was John. On the contrary, when John the Baptist, pointing out Jesus, said, "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:29), it is clear that he did not use the word "lamb" in that same proper literal sense which would have excluded every trope or figure, and which would have denoted some "real" lamb: what he wished proximately and directly to express, that is, the literal sense of his words, was that in the derived and figurative sense Jesus could be called "the Lamb of God." In the former case, the words are used in their proper literal sense; in the latter, in their tropical or figurative sense. That the books of Holy Writ have a literal sense (proper or metaphorical, as just explained), that is, a meaning proximately and directly intended by the inspired writers, is a truth so clear in itself, and at the same time so universally granted, that it would be idle to insist on it here. . . Has any passage of Holy Writ more than one literal sense? . . .all admit that since the sacred books were composed by men, and for men, their writers naturally conformed to that most elementary law of human intercourse, which requires that only one precise sense shall be proximately and directly intended by the words of the speaker or writer. . .31

Craven states the same relation between figurative language and literal truth:

No terms could have been chosen more unfit to designate the two great schools of prophetical exegetes than "literal" and "spiritual." These terms are not antithetical, nor are they in any proper sense significant of the peculiarities of the respective systems they are employed to characterize. They are positively misleading and confusing. Literal is opposed not to spiritual but to "figurative;" spiritual is in antithesis on the one hand to "material", on the other to "carnal" (in a bad sense). The literalist (so called) 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 (ie, according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded. The position of the Spiritualists (so called) is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that whilst certain portions of the prophecies are to be "normally" interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a "mystical" (ie, involving some secret meaning) sense. Thus, for instance, Spiritualists (so called) do not deny that when the Messiah is spoken of as a "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," the prophecy is to be normally interpreted; they affirm, however, that when He is spoken of as coming "in the clouds of heaven" the language is to be "spiritually" (mystically) interpreted. . . .the terms properly used of the schools are "normal" and "mystical."32

It will thus be observed that the literalist does not deny the existence of figurative language. the literalist does, however, deny that such figures must be interpreted so as to destroy the literal truth intended through the employment of the figures. Literal truth is to be learned through the symbols.

E. Some objections to the literal method. Allis states three objections against the literal method of interpretation.

1. The language of the bible often contains figures of speech. This is especially true of its poetry. . . In the poetry of the Psalms, in the elevated style of prophecy, and even in simple historical narration, figures of speech appear which quite obviously are not meant to be and cannot be understood literally.

2. The great theme of the bible is, god and His redemptive dealings with mankind. God is a Spirit; the most precious teaching of the bible are spiritual; and these spiritual and heavenly realities are often set forth under the form of earthly objects and human relationships.

3. The fact that the Old Testament is both preliminary and preparatory to the New Testament is too obvious to require proof. In referring the Corinthian Christians by way of warning and admonition to the events of the Exodus, the apostle Paul declared that these things were "ensamples" (types). That is, they prefigured things to come. This gives to much that is in the Old Testament a special significance and importance . . . Such an interpretation recognizes, in the light of the New Testament fulfillment, a deeper and far more wonderful meaning in the words of many an old testament passage than, taken in their Old Testament context and connection, they seem to contain.33

In reply to the first of these arguments, one must recognize the use made of figures of speech. As has previously been emphasized, figures may be used to teach literal truth more forcefully than the bare words themselves and do not argue for allegorical interpretation. In regard to the second, while it is recognized that God is spiritual, the only way God could reveal truth in a realm into which we have not as yet entered is to draw a parallel from the realm in which we now live. Through the transference of what is literally true in the known realm into the unknown realm, that unknown realm will be revealed to us. The fact that God is spiritual does not demand allegorical interpretation. One must distinguish between what is spiritual and what is spiritualized. And, in respect to the third, while it is recognized that the Old Testament is anticipatory , and the New unfolds the Old, the fullness revealed in the New is not revealed through the allegorization of what is typified in the Old, but rather through the literal fulfillment and the unfolding of the literal truth of the types. Types may teach literal truth and the use of types in the Old Testament is no support for the allegorical method of interpretation. Feinberg well observes:

Spiritualizers seemed to think that because revelation came gradually that the later the prophesy or revealed matter is, the more valuable it is. The fact of a gradual revelation has no force in determining the method of interpretation. . . Furthermore, a proper interpretation of 2 Cor. 3:6 does not detract in the slightest from our position. When Paul said: "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," he was not authorizing the spiritualizing interpretation of scripture. If the literal kills, then how is it that God gives His message in such a form? The meaning of the apostle evidently is that the mere acceptance of the letter without the work of the Holy Spirit related to it, leads to death.34

1. Oswalt T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 17.

2. Ibid, p. 244. cf. pp.99, 116, 218, 227, 242, 256 where further reference is made to literal interpretation as the basis of premillennialism.

3. Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism, p. 51.

4. Floyd E. Hamilton, The basis of Millennial Fatih, pp. 38-39

5. Allis, op. cit., p.238

6. Albertus Pieters, The leader, September 5, 1934, as cited by Gerrit H. Hospers, The principle of Spiritualization in Hermeneutics, p.5.

7. William H. Rutgers, Premillennialism in America, p. 263

8. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 1.

9. Cf. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 163-174 where such methods as teh Halachic, Hagadic, Allegorical, Mystical, Accommodation, Moral, Naturalistic, Mythical, Apologetic, Dogmatic, and Grammatico-historical are traced.

10. Joseph Angus and Samuel G. Green, The Bible Handbook, p. 220

11. Ramm, op.cit., p. 21

12. Charles T. Fritsch, "Biblical Typology," Bibliotheca Sacra, 104:216, April, 1947.

13. Terry, op. cit., p. 224.

14.Angus-Green, loc. cit.

15. Cited by F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 232.

16. Ibid., p. 238.

17. Ibid.

18. Ramm, op. cit., p. 65.

19. Allis, op. cit., p. 18.

20. Farrar, op. cit., p. xxiii.

21. George H. Gilbert, The Interpretation of the Bible, p. 82.

22. Farrar, op. cit., p. 217.

23. Allis, op. cit., p. 21.

24. Rollin T. Chafer, The Science of Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 80.

25. Ramm, op. cit., p. 53.

26. Cf. Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, I, 322.

27. Ramm, op. cit., p. 64.

28. Ibid., pp. 54ff.

29. Cf. Feinberg, op. cit., p. 39.

30. Ramm, op. citl, pp. 62-63.

31. Francis E. Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, p. 386-87.

32. John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Revelation, p. 98.

33. Allis, op. cit., pp. 17-18.

34. Feinberg, op. cit., p. 50.

Return to Bible Interpretation Page

Continue to CHAPTER 2

İRon Wallace, http://www.biblefragrances.com. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it,
but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author's consent.

Home | Recent Additions | Studies | Commentary

Prophecy | Articles | Topical | About Us