Interpreting Scripture

Covenant (Reformed) Theology and Dispensational Theology have long debated the proper hermeneutic to use when interpreting Scripture.  While both use a literal method for much of Scripture, Dispensationalism (especially so-called Revised Dispensationalism under Charles Ryrie) has emphasized the consistent use of literal interpretation for all of Scripture.  This is seen most clearly in that both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology interpret historical narratives literally, whereas Covenant Theology often interprets prophetic passages of Scripture allegorically.  Forgotten in this discussion is that Classical Dispensationalism as developed under the Plymouth Brethren, Scofield, Chafer, and especially Arno Gaebelein, while not denying the literal historicity of historical passages, also allowed for a typological understanding of them (see the CHART: Philosophies of Interpretation under the Biblical Studies tab).  They viewed many of the Bible’s historical accounts as establishing patterns having prophetic significance (cf. Eccl1:9-10; 3:15; Cp., Rom5:14; Col2:17; Heb8:5; 10:1; 11:19).  Indeed, the Apostle Paul affirmed that O.T. historical accounts “were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope” (Rom15:4), and that “all these things happened to them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1Cor10:11).  The word translated “ensamples” is from the Greek tupos (i.e., types). Typology is a rich and fruitful feature of Scripture that should not be neglected!