[The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.
Let us mention a few examples. An obvious one is the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah concerning the Lord Jesus being born of a virgin. Today, the Lord has already been born of a virgin. It is therefore no surprise to us when we read and hear this word. But at the time of Isaiah, when men read what he wrote concerning a virgin bearing a child and calling his name Emmanuel, would they not have had difficulty in their mind? A person would certainly have difficulty in understanding how a virgin can be with child. Some could have turned to a spiritual interpretation, suggesting that the virgin could mean something else rather than an actual virgin. But when this prophecy was fulfilled, it was fulfilled literally. The virgin referred to an actual virgin.
Again the book of Zechariah in the Old Testament prophesied that the Lord Jesus would enter Jerusalem the last time on a colt. When a person read this at that time, they could have found it hard to understand because to them, this One to whom others would proclaim “Hosanna,” the King worthy of praise, the most esteemed One of Israel, could not possibly enter Jerusalem on a little colt. Men would think that it is illogical to ride on a colt. For that reason, they would interpret it spiritually to mean something else. However, when the prophecy was fulfilled, it was fulfilled literally in every way. The word was colt, and it was in fact a colt.
When we read the Bible, on the one hand, we have to receive spiritual inspirations, but on the other hand, we must not alter the literal meaning to fit a spiritual interpretation. Only when a literal interpretation of a prophecy or parable leads to absurdities or improprieties can we interpret them spiritually. But such cases are few in the Bible.
One has to consider carefully whether a passage should be interpreted literally or spiritually. There is a big difference there. I have heard that some have interpreted the locusts in Revelation as today’s airplanes, and the hail from heaven as the bombs dropped by the planes. This is ridiculous. We must be careful not to interpret the Bible too freely. If one wants to find examples of strange and irrational interpretations, he can read the “Signs of the Times,” published by the Seventh-Day Adventists. There one can find many unrestricted and haphazard interpretations. We should not interpret the Bible this way. We should hold fast to the principles and adhere to the literal meanings as much as possible. It is only when a literal interpretation of some words in some visions, prophecies, and parables becomes too absurd and silly that we can interpret them spiritually.]
[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. For example, the Lord Jesus said in John 3 that unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Many Bible expositors have interpreted the water here spiritually as referring to the word of God. However, in the next phrase, they take the Spirit literally, referring to it as the Holy Spirit. This kind of interpretation is wrong and is against the principle of Bible interpretation. If one would interpret the Spirit in the second part literally, he must interpret the water in the first part literally also. If one interprets the water spiritually, he must interpret the Spirit spiritually also. Since one cannot interpret the Spirit spiritually, neither can he interpret the water spiritually; it must be interpreted literally.
In Matthew 3, John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I...He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire; whose winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and will gather His wheat into His barn, but He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire” (vv. 11-12). Some expositors have interpreted the fire here spiritually as tribulations and trials. Some have even interpreted this to be the Holy Spirit burning as a fire. All these have interpreted the word fire spiritually. But in this verse, the water mentioned by John is actual water, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, literally. Therefore, the fire in the latter part should not be interpreted spiritually, but rather, literally. If the word fire has to be interpreted spiritually, then the water should also be interpreted spiritually. However, it is impossible to do this. This is an important principle in the interpretation of the Bible. For the different parts within a same passage, either they must all be interpreted literally, or they must all be interpreted spiritually. They cannot be interpreted both ways.]