Perhaps one might argue that there is an immediate, temporal aspect to Isa. 14:12-15, referring to the death and judgment of the King of Babylon; and a second, spiritual or prophetic aspect to this, referring to an angelic being who sinned and was/will be judged. This raises the question of consistency in applying the rules of interpretation.
Why, in some passages (like the biblical account of creation, in Genesis), are we supposed to take every word absolutely literally (God created the world in seven, 24-hour days) and in other passages, we're supposed to say, "Yeah, this talks about two things, and one is obvious and the other requires interpretation. This is about a fallen angel and events that happened before the creation of the world."
This lack of consistency makes no sense to me.
My scholarly training as a reader of literature (and I do have a B.A . in English Literature) is that one interprets a single text by a consistent and reasonable set of standards. While differing interpretations are possible, valid interpretations can be supported from the text. Good scholarship is not arbitrary.
(Journal, Jan. 13, 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment