Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference

I realize the exchange was directed at a comment of Paul’s but it is worth weighing in here.

[Bob Hayton]

[Paul J. Scharf] Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc….

I don’t agree with you here. One can actually have absolute certainty in their understanding of a text because of the methodology they employ in their hermeneutic? Even if a dispensational literalistic hermeneutic is the ultimate hermeneutical approach, it doesn’t follow that such a hermeneutic results in certainty, or absolute certainty which seems to be what is intended.

One cannot have certainty about a text if they begin without a certain hermeneutic. While methodology alone is not the only qualifier, to diminish the overriding value of a proper hermeneutic (methodology) by miscasting it as the only element, therefore arguing against its role in an invalid equation (proper methodology = absolute certainty) which no one has presented, does not make for a response to the initial premise. Without a certain or proper hermeneutic (I realize the nuanced difference in certain and proper and both apply)one cannot decipher or interpret the text properly or certainly and clearly cannot learn more about God.

[Bob Hayton] We can understand the text with a high degree of certainty, and yet still allow for difficult passages and limitations in our abilities to perceive all the text is saying. We can do this and still learn about God.

First, to understand the text to a high degree or certainty or absolute certainty is not an argument against a necessary hermeneutic, frankly it argues for one. We understand it with such certainty because we are confident in the rules of interpretation on which or by which our conclusions are based. The uncertainty is not with the hermeneutic, it remains in place, rather with our inadequacies. Notice what you have said, “limitations in our abilities to perceive”. We are not uncertain because we question our hermeneutic, otherwise we need to put down our work of interpretating and go back and re-learn or unlearn and replace our hermeneutic until we have one with which we are confident has specific rules and boundaries for interpretation.

[Bob Hayton] It is one of God’s graces to us, that even though we struggle with interpretations and sometimes scratch our head over competing textual variants, yet the message of the Gospel shines through loud and clear, and our personal relationship with Jesus Christ remains untouched.

Actually, no, this is not true. Many men argue over the Gospel and the elementary truths of Scripture. Why? Hermeneutics.

[Bob Hayton] Such a statement as that I quoted can belie an approach that enshrines the Bible as a spiritual talisman and could lead to bibliolatry. We can know God through prayer, and there is much in interpretation that the Christian church is almost unanimous on, and that is the Gospel, and the doctrine of God. That remains most important, irrespective of exegetical squabbling.

What does God say to you in your prayers? Does he provide new revelation? This is an interesting claim, that through prayer God provides revelation of himself.

It may sound sarcastic but it isn’t. You are implying, within the context of “knowing God” through the Scriptures, i.e. his revelation of himself and his plan to and for mankind, that it can be substituted through prayer. It is as if one is allowed to say:

“Well, I am having trouble learning the Bible and I don’t have an understanding of how to interpret it (most people to have a basic hermeneutic btw or else they could not communicate with others and survive so people do understand and use rules of interpretation everyday) therefore I will circumvent this necessity and just go to God in prayer and he will reveal to me what is revealed in Scripture but this time I won’t have to interpret it, he will do it for me”. Eh?

If it is not a substitute then what is it? It certainly ends up as a very, very, very lesser means with respect to studying the word if used this way.

That is because prayer was not designed as a substitute for learning God’s Word and maturing in the faith through the Word, in spite of sincere and well meaning arguments. Prayer is not a vehicle for revelation and indoctrination. That is accomplished through the Word of God. The argument that one can know God through prayer in the context of the order of knowing God by means of his revelation is a very fragile argument that, when taken to its ends, cannot be sustained.

As to that on which the church agrees, namely the Gospel and the doctrine of God, again, this is not true. But to that segment of the church that does agree but hold to hermeneutics that are not identical, I submit that the reason they agree on these is that the departures regarding their hermeneutics are not so severe as to strain these basic tenets and not because hermeneutics really isn’t such a great issue. It is. But again, even the person of Christ has been argued within the church for 2,000 years. Why? Differing hermeneutics.

Bibliolotry or the threat of bibliolotry is always an interesting claim. I know of no genuine confessing group of believers that worships the bible. This is a straw man argument. Some might say it is done practically. Maybe, but I have yet to see this pointed to and argued concretely. Show me the group who is guilty. But remember to keep your evaluation of the group’s words and practices within the rules of fair and proper interpretation. :) But really, this simply does not happen as its threat of possibility and warning indicates. If it does it would be the rarest of eccentricities.

But what does happen is the Word of God is treated as it should be, as divine revelation and the means by which we can know God with respect to the revelation of God to man. In other words there is no additional revelation. Yes, God’s Spirit illuminates us (and this cannot be under emphasized but the context of the argument was about hermeneutics, hence my response focused on that element) , yes prayer has a role in our relationship with God and even in learning God’s Word but that role is not to substitute or replace learning God’s Word.

A few responses, Alex. You posted probably before seeing my most recent comment above which may be worth checking out re: literal interpreation.

I think presuppositions and other factors weigh into why some don’t “get the Gospel” more so than hermeneutics. Also, studying the word can be a substitute for communing with God. I think it should be a vehicle for such communion, but it can tend to be a replacement of it. At least I find that in my life. It’s a means not the end. That’s what I was getting at, not so much revelatory prayer, but the message of the Gospel is communicated and grasped in oral cultures and communion with God through prayer and worship can happen, even when the written word isn’t possessed in their language.

As for bibliolatry, it can be a tendency. Using the term is a shock tactic, I realize people don’t worship it, but some forms of Christianity use it as a holy book and revere it mystically but don’t truly commune with God. Not sure if I’m making sense here, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying. I may have expressed what I was getting at a bit better in my most recent post where I’m quoting Gerstner about how “literal hermeneutics” really isn’t the defining difference between dispensationalists and Reformed Christians.

Kevin DeYoung posted today on his recent talk on “being missional.” I highly recommend it.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/10/08/my-missiona…

[Bob Hayton]

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee or the postmodern theology).

Bob and Caleb,

Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system of interpretation by allowing the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.

Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.

All Bible-believers intend to interpret literally. The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one’s theology necessitates it).

FYI, John Hagee is not an extreme dispensationalist, but an errant dispensationalist.

Paul,

Please don’t pretend that only dispensationalists care about the context! It boils down to a disagreement about prophecy, and when to stay literal and when not to. It’s too convenient and self-serving to say “it’s just we, who appreciate the context, and you don’t”.

When I took hermeneutics, my professor had a great explanation of what literal interpretation means. He said,

“A literal system is the Biblical system that rises from Scripture, and it produces a true Biblical theology…What, then, does ‘the rule that rises from the Bible’ mean? It is the view that all texts are meant to be viewed as natural as they are. Like all literature, what the text says is what it means. There are indeed times when the text makes it clear that the material being presented is a symbol, type, or allegory, but when the text clearly indicates that the subject is a symbol, then that is the literal interpretation of that text.” (Dr. Clay Nuttall)

In my opinion, this is a great explanation.

Ricky

[Bob Hayton] Paul,

Please don’t pretend that only dispensationalists care about the context! It boils down to a disagreement about prophecy, and when to stay literal and when not to. It’s too convenient and self-serving to say “it’s just we, who appreciate the context, and you don’t”.

Bob,

Go back and re-read my post. That is not what I was saying.

I am saying that one major difference between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists is that dispensationalists do not allow factors outside the context to determine the meaning of the text. Thus, “all Israel shall be saved” means just that.

That is what we are criticized for, for crying out loud!!!

[James K] Caleb, can you point out a single advocate of the literal hermeneutic does not acknowledge metaphors, figures of speech and other literary techniques?

Was Herod a fox?

1. He was not an animal.

2. He was cunning and crafty.

Therefore:

A literal hermeneutic realizes that the comparison is made to reflect actual and literal characteristics of Herod.

It just gets old after awhile. These reasons are like vampires, they just won’t die and they suck the life out of good hermeneutics.

Your opening question is making my point for me. If a “literal” hermeneutic encompases the non-literal devices like “metaphor,” “figures of speect,” etc, then what exactly is the criticism against those that take a non-literal interpretation on a various text. We are told that one is consistently literal, and the other is not. But the “consistently” literal interpretation encompases the non-literal too, so what is the problem? What is the criticism? If the other side isn’t literal, then they can point to your figures of speech as not being literal too. Is the criticism “rather” that someone else takes a passage non-literally that you have decided is literal? If this is the criticism, then it would be much more clear than saying, “well, I’m just consistently literal, and you are not.” In other words, I’m trying to call the bluff on the double standard and push others to really get to the heart of the issue without resorting to cliche thoughtless comments like, “I’m literal, and you’re not.” I’m trying to push others to be clear about where it is they actually disagree. Again, I’m against the overly generalized use of the term “literal”.

I noticed that you didn’t deal with the 70 times 7. Are numbers sometimes not literal? Where exactly is the “literal” offer of the kingdom?

[Paul J. Scharf]

[Bob Hayton]

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee or the postmodern theology).

Bob and Caleb,

Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system of interpretation by allowing the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.

Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.

All Bible-believers intend to interpret literally. The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one’s theology necessitates it).

FYI, John Hagee is not an extreme dispensationalist, but an errant dispensationalist.

Thank you for your comments here. I hope that my posts have not been inflamatory but rather productive in getting thoughts flowing. “Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system…” This means that the literal system has non-literal elements in it, plain and simple. So the simplistic criticism of being literal (especially “consistently literal”) while the other is not is a distinction without a difference. Both are literal and not literal.

You also mention how disp interpretation allows “the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.” How broad is the context? Is this the context on the phrase level? Is this the context on the sentence level? Is this the context on the pericope level? Is this the context on the section level of a book? Is this the context on the level of the surrounding chapters of a book? Is this on the level of the author’s purpose for the book? Is this the context level of the surrounding culture of the times? Is this the context level minus certain scientific precisions that we often foreignly foist upon the text? Is this the context level of the NT? Is this a canonical context? Is this context accounting for worldview considerations on the interpreter and the author? Is this context including the aspects of how one’s systematic understanding of Scripture affects what he sees as literal and not? (for example, the Open Theist says that he is simply taking the text literally when he says that God does not know, because God is literally asking “Where are you Adam?”) In other words, something a little more difinitive than “context” is needed.

Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.I’m sorry, but I don’t follow what you are trying to say. You just talked about the context determining the macro level, and now you are saying that this is different than the context determining on the mocro level. What are you talking about? Are you basically saying that the first response is to take a text literally unless the context calls for it? I’m sorry, but I’m not following your distinction between macro and micro.

The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one’s theology necessitates it).So tell me, do you take 70 times 7 literally? I did bring it up for a reason, because it has numbers in it. After my comment on “context” can you see how I would see this comment a little too simplistic? What if they are allowing a differnt context to control their interpretation than the context you are allowing? So then what is the criticism again? Please understand, that I’m not advocating a literal or a figurative view of the 1,000 years. I’m just trying to push others into describing what exactly is the real issue. I’m just trying to push past the distinctions without a difference and get to the heart of the matter.

[Caleb S] Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.I’m sorry, but I don’t follow what you are trying to say. You just talked about the context determining the macro level, and now you are saying that this is different than the context determining on the mocro level. What are you talking about? Are you basically saying that the first response is to take a text literally unless the context calls for it? I’m sorry, but I’m not following your distinction between macro and micro.

Obviously, it would take a long time to go back and forth point by point, and this is a complex issue. So, if you don’t mind, I am just going to get to the heart of the matter, where I believe this point takes us.

Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally. They have a literal system (at least this is the goal and direction of dispensationalism). This is macro-literalism.

Within that system, dispensationalists recognize that not every word, phrase or concept is to be taken in a denotatively literal sense. Thus, on the micro level, not every word is taken in a denotatively literal sense — even though when it is not the interpreter is still practicing literal interpretation — because he has yielded his interpretation to the text, which in that case demands an understanding of some type of figure of speech.

All Bible believers probably would claim to have a macro-literal system of interpretation, in the sense just described. Coming out of a strong conservative Lutheran background, I think I have a good handle on what I believe to be “non-literal interpretaton,” if I can use that term. In other words, dispensationalists believe they are justified in pointing out the weakness of an interpretation which is controlled by something other than the immediate context.

A non-emotion producing example: Rev. 6 talks about four horses and their riders; Ex. 15:1 also talks about a horse and rider. But unless you can show me from the context of Rev. 6 — not from your theology or “worldview considerations” — why Ex. 15 should be used to interpret Rev. 6, I am going to say that it is illegitimate to do so. I am going to interpret Rev. 6 in its own context — starting with the denotative meanings of words, trying to deal with obvious idioms and figures of speech and then looking for interpretive clues within the text to show me what other metaphorical figures are used, as well as what they might mean.

This is what I am talking about in principle.

BTW - these are complex issues that aren’t easily unraveled in 2-minute sound bites. And its application to any and every specific text — well that’s a lifetime job ;)

I think we are using “literal” a bit loosely here. Here are some quotes to help clarify.

This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

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 (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).

The key word that a dispensationalist focuses on is “consistent” … as in “consistent use of literal hermeneutic.”

Larry,

If I you are referring to me, I actually was trying to speak quite precisely, and I do not think I am contradicting anything in your citations… ;)

No, Paul … Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Caleb using it differently than it is normally used (or literally used, if you will). He is trying to pin some ideas on “literal” that are incorrect. He is using Kevan’s “literalistic” instead of “literal,” which as it pointed out, is actually normal.

I don’t even like to use the word “literal” because of the misunderstanding that some have. I prefer “normal.” We read the Bible normally. We usually don’t get too confused over symbolism or metaphor that way.

[Paul J. Scharf] Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally. They have a literal system (at least this is the goal and direction of dispensationalism). This is macro-literalism.

Within that system, dispensationalists recognize that not every word, phrase or concept is to be taken in a denotatively literal sense. Thus, on the micro level, not every word is taken in a denotatively literal sense — even though when it is not the interpreter is still practicing literal interpretation — because he has yielded his interpretation to the text, which in that case demands an understanding of some type of figure of speech.

All Bible believers probably would claim to have a macro-literal system of interpretation, in the sense just described. Coming out of a strong conservative Lutheran background, I think I have a good handle on what I believe to be “non-literal interpretaton,” if I can use that term. In other words, dispensationalists believe they are justified in pointing out the weakness of an interpretation which is controlled by something other than the immediate context.

A non-emotion producing example: Rev. 6 talks about four horses and their riders; Ex. 15:1 also talks about a horse and rider. But unless you can show me from the context of Rev. 6 — not from your theology or “worldview considerations” — why Ex. 15 should be used to interpret Rev. 6, I am going to say that it is illegitimate to do so. I am going to interpret Rev. 6 in its own context — starting with the denotative meanings of words, trying to deal with obvious idioms and figures of speech and then looking for interpretive clues within the text to show me what other metaphorical figures are used, as well as what they might mean.

This is what I am talking about in principle.

BTW - these are complex issues that aren’t easily unraveled in 2-minute sound bites. And its application to any and every specific text — well that’s a lifetime job ;)

Paul,

Thank you for responding back with clarification. I do not wish to push the matter any more at this present time, as I feel like doing so would be uncharitable. I hope that everyone has a great weekend. Thank you for your time (Paul and others). This whole discussion about literal vs not-literal was only a passing thought when I began interaction with this thread. The main point was that a love for God was to be the main thing, as He is the Incomparable One. Paul, if “theology is the queen of the sciences, and dispensationalism is queen of all theologies,” as you believe; then I would strongly suggest that theology proper is king of all theologies. That was the main point. So long as God is truly ultimate, then I don’t mind so much disagreeing on dispensational theology.

Shalom

Hope it was helpful somehow… :D nothing uncharitable taken…