Conflicting Schools Of Interpretation A Christian Leader Was Recently Asked On National Television About
Who Has The Right
1to Interpret the Bible?
1the significance and meaning of Christ’s directive that, “Ye shall
know them by their fruits.” He was asked if the truth of a religion
should be judged simply by that standard, by the good fruits a
Messenger or Prophet produces. He said, “We cannot accept a
religion simply because it produces good fruits. Its theology must
also be correct.” What he implied was this: to be credible, it is not
sufficient for a Redeemer to produce an abundance of good fruits
as an evidence of His Claim. He must also present a theology or an
interpretation that the “mainstream” Christians or that particular
leader will consider correct!
This raises a serious question. How can anyone claim to have the
correct theology, when we know that every human being is fallible,
and that there are so many schools of interpretation?
Dr. Robert Lightner, a distinguished and highly respected Christian
scholar and professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological
Seminary, has written a book to promote reconciliation among
supporters of various schools of prophecy within orthodox
Christianity. His book—The Last Day Handbook—does not
address the differences between Catholics and Protestants, or
between unorthodox denominations within the Protestant church,
but only between evangelicals, the ones who “embrace the historic
orthodox Christian faith.”
2For those who do not have time to study countless books of
prophecy, it may be revealing to know the attitudes of
distinguished theologians, who by their education specialize in
interpreting the Word of God, and by their position wield
enormous power over the spiritual lives of millions of believers.
Dr. Lightner writes:
The fact is that soon after the apostles passed from the earthly
scene, differences developed over end times. The battle has
raged among evangelicals at least since the third century…
For the most part, theologians, educators, authors, and preachers
are the ones wielding the weapons…
How goes the battle? The furor over the future is a battle of
words, but behind the fighting words there are attitudes and
feelings that reflect some deep seated differences.
When strong differences are expressed, each side inevitably
accuses the other of being unfair and of misrepresentation
It is understandable that objections will be raised by opposing
sides of an issue. Honest differences will always exist as long as
there are two people around. But differences and disagreements
develop into open warfare when slander of people and views,
unsupportable accusations, judgments of motives, name calling,
and insinuations are used against those with whom we differ.
When this happens, Christian principles are discarded and
carnality rules the day. The works of the flesh, not the fruit of
the Spirit, are manifest, and honest differences on an issue such
as eschatology cannot be expressed without the smell of gunfire
and below-the-belt blows…Adherents of each of the views of
future events are guilty of unfairness. All the bullets have not
been fired from the guns of one particular side.2
The question is this: if theologians are at war, what are the laymen
supposed to believe? How can they decide who is right and who is
wrong? Is it wise to leave one’s eternal destiny in the hands of the
people who assume the positions of leadership, but are as confused
as everyone else? Is it prudent to let people, who are subject to
every human weakness, decide what others are supposed to
believe?
3There are various systems of theology, with various subsystems in
each system, and various shades of opinion among the supporters
of each subsystem! In his book, Dr. Lightner introduces the
following nine systems or schools of interpretation:
• Amillennialism • Posttribulationism
• Postmillennialism • Pretribulationism
• Premillennialism • Antidispensationalism
• Midtribulationism • Dispensationalism3
• Partial Rapturism
What is the basis of the differences in the various systems of
interpretation concerning the end-time prophecies? The core of all
the differences lies in this principle: which prophecies are literal,
which prophecies are symbolic. That is all! Some schools lean
toward the literal, others toward the symbolic, and still others take
a middle position. Almost every difference in interpretation can be
traced to the literal-symbolic question. If that could be resolved,
almost all the differences between various schools of interpretation
within Christianity and between Bahá’í and Christian
interpretations would be resolved.
As Dr. Lightner writes:
All evangelicals do use the literal method for their
understanding of most of the Bible, but some…think it best to
use a less than literal hermeneutic [the art or science of
interpretation] with much unfulfilled prophecy. It is at this point
that the evangelical world is divided over things to come and
this is what puts prophecy in the middle of the debate.4
It is astounding how one principle of interpretation can separate so
many people; how one difference of viewpoint can exert so much
impact on the spiritual life of humankind. Is not the diversity of
opinion among experts an evidence that deciphering prophecy
requires more wisdom than human beings can acquire? Should not
this observation instill humility in every believer, in every Bible
teacher and scholar?
4Dr. Lightner then asks this question: Why is there such a diversity
of interpretation among the various schools of interpretation? Why
do the interpreters of prophecy differ in their views so
passionately? In response, he offers fourteen reasons. Consider the
following:
• Not knowing, yet failing to admit ignorance.
• Overestimating or exaggerating the passages that support
one’s views.
• Misrepresenting the facts.
• Acting selfishly for personal gain.
• Being stubborn in one’s views.5
The faults described by Dr. Lightner reminds us of human
weaknesses. They show how the forces of emotions can subdue
and defeat the forces of reason. It was those same forces that
caused the people of Israel to deny their Lord. It is those same
weaknesses that have caused wars throughout the ages.
Even among conservative Christians, who are literalists and
ultraliteralists, there is a wide variety of views about the Second
Advent. Christian scholar William Cox asks: “Since all
conservative men use essentially the same method of interpreting
Scripture, then how is it that they end up with such divergent views
on the millennium? Does the Bible…actually give five completely
different accounts of the millennium?”6 He then responds by
saying that the conflicting accounts of the end-time prophecies
result from this problem: the highly literal-minded interpreters use
certain passages of the Scripture “in order to justify [their]
preconceived unscriptural presuppositions.”7 Is this not exactly
what the Pharisees did?
• They were highly literal-minded.
• They interpreted their prophecies to fit their expectations.
William Cox then criticizes the extreme literalism prevalent among
many Christians. He asks the interpreters of the Word of God to
learn from the examples of history:
5It is indeed a dangerous thing for anyone to wax hyperliteral—
especially in dealing with highly figurative language found in
some parts of the Bible.
Hyperliteralism is the same interpretation given to certain
passages from the Old Testament by the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
It was this method of interpretation that, humanly speaking,
kept them from recognizing the Christ as the Hope of Israel.
Hyperliteralism kept them from seeing that the unfulfilled
promises of the Old Testament were…fulfilled through the
Christian church. Rabbinism [Rabbinical teachings and
traditions] is still with us today, in modern garb.
The non-believing Jews expected their Messiah to appear and to
set up a kingdom. And this belief was based on the Scriptures.
However, their hyperliteral interpretation of the Old Testament
blinded their eyes to the genuine kingdom and kept them from
recognizing the real king. The Messiah did come into the world,
and he did establish his kingdom; or, rather he manifested a new
phase of the on-going eternal kingdom of God.
The Jews expected a warrior-type Messiah who would inflict
vengeance on their enemies and place Jews in chosen places of
leadership. To their dismay Jesus did not Come into Jerusalem
on a white charger, but rather he entered the city on a lowly
donkey. And he went about as a physician—healing even
Gentiles! And he taught them to love their enemies and to do
good to those who hated them. Away with such a “messiah!”
This cannot be the Messiah of our Talmud…Indeed. Mr.
Pharisee, you are correct. Jesus was not the “messiah” of the
Talmud. But he was, and is, the Messiah predicted in the
language (oftentimes figurative language) of the Old Testament.
And, while his kingdom was a disappointment to hyperliteral
interpreters of the Old Testament, it was indeed the fulfillment
of the kingdom predicted therein.8
The most valuable part of an orange is its juice, not its skin. Christ
was offering the juice, the Pharisees were worrying about the skin.
That type of thinking is common to all ages and in all circles. “A
minister was saying that God knows what is best for us. We are
like flowers. ‘You know roses grow best in sunlight, but fuchsias
6require shade to grow.’ he said. A woman came up to him bubbling
over with praise. ‘Pastor, that was just a wonderful sermon. I never
could figure out just what was wrong with my fuchsias!’“