Literal or Figurative?
Image
One of the biggest debates among Christians is how to interpret the Bible. Liberals accuse conservatives of taking the Bible too literally. Conservatives accuse liberals of not taking the Bible seriously enough, often by declaring controversial sections to be figurative. That seems to be a handy way to avoid passages that teach what you don’t want to believe.
But even conservative Christians divide over the issue of literal verses figurative. For example, Dispensationalists often accuse the Reformed of spiritualizing certain sections of Scripture, and the Reformed frequently fault Dispensationalists for their “wooden literalism” by awkwardly forcing literal interpretations upon passages that are intended to be figurative.
Dispensationalists charge the Reformed with “Replacement Theology,” which means interpreting Old Testament prophecies made to Israel as fulfilled in the New Testament Church, and the Reformed return the favor by charging Dispensationalists with interpretive myopia; focusing too narrowly upon the immediate context, and failing to see the forest for the trees.
Nobody takes it all literally.
The plain truth is, nobody takes the entire Bible literally. The liberal taunt, that fundamentalists take the whole Bible literally is just not true. Entire sections of Scripture are clearly written in figuratively language, and it is impossible for anyone to take it all literally. It cannot be done, and I don’t know anyone who tries. The big question is not are some parts of the Bible figurative, but rather which parts are figurative and which are literal, and how do we decide?
Hermeneutics
The big word for this issue is “hermeneutics,” which is shorthand for “rules of interpretation.” It would be nice if God had written a Forward to the Bible in which He issued rules of interpretation, but He didn’t. There is no heaven-sent list of interpretational guidelines, which means we have to work them out for ourselves, deriving them from our study of Scripture. Principles of interpretation can be inferred from Scripture, but the Bible nowhere spells them out. Dispensationalists, who favor a more literal approach, usually emphasize a rule that states in essence, “Literal whenever possible.” Accordingly, every passage should be understood in the most literal manner possible. Only when a literal interpretation appears impossible should a figurative interpretation be considered.
At first glance, that sounds reasonable, perhaps even unquestionable. But with additional consideration, it requires some thoughtful development. Who decides what is possible? Isn’t that largely subjective? What seems possible to one may seem impossible to another. The subjective element is why there are a wide variety of interpretations of books such as Revelation, even among Dispensationalists who are all attempting to faithfully apply this rule. Something that clearly looks symbolic to one is often deemed literal by another. There is also the question of how New Testament writers understand Old Testament passages. Sections from the OT that seem literal enough within their immediate context, appear to be understood figuratively by NT writers who do not seem to be employing the literal-whenever-possible rule.
A simple example
What did Paul mean by the word “rod” when he said, “What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” (1 Corinthians 4:21) Was Paul literally threatening the Corinthians with corporal punishment? Most would say no, but why not? Applying the literal-whenever-possible rule, shouldn’t we conclude that’s what he meant? Is it impossible for him to intend a literal rod? If we read something like that in the Quran, would we assume that “rod” could not be understood literally? Or would we instead probably conclude that this constitutes a genuine threat to beat somebody black and blue?
Context shapes our interpretive conclusions. Most Bible students agree that Paul did not intend to use a literal rod, but again, why not? Is it not because that seems out of character with what we know about Paul? Taking the bigger picture we conclude that the statement is symbolic, that Paul uses “rod” to mean harsh demeanor and verbal chastisement. In many ways, this seems like common sense, but common sense can be quite subjective. In the “rod” text, what we have done is employ another rule of interpretation called “the analogy of Scripture,” which says that you interpret each individual passage in light of the whole. That’s easier said than done, but this is an important principle too. If the Bible is God’s Word, it cannot contradict itself, so every individual statement must harmonize with the entire Bible.
Because of everything we know about Paul, we conclude that he did not mean a literal rod. The text considered in isolation could be understood literally, but the life and words of Paul, taken as a whole, preclude our understanding “rod” literally as a wooden instrument of corporal punishment.
A unifying principle
It would be helpful if competing schools of interpretation would keep the “rod” example in mind. Instead of concluding that our brethren are compromisers who are bending Scripture to fit their theological pigeonholes, perhaps we should consider that their understanding of the analogy of Scripture forces them to take figuratively what others take literally. Yes, that particular statement, considered by itself, looks like it could be interpreted literally. But considered in light of the whole Bible, literal just doesn’t seem possible.
I think it would be accurate to say that nearly every conservative Bible student agrees with the rule, “literal whenever possible.” But another rule, the “analogy of Scripture” limits what is possible in some situations. Literal-whenever-possible is an important rule, and necessary to avoid the kind of allegorical nonsense that turns every Bible verse into an imaginative fancy that bears no resemblance to the intended meaning of the author.
But literal-whenever-possible does not always yield the same result in every situation. The analogy of Scripture means that equally serious and spiritually minded students may draw different conclusions about what is possible. What seems possible to someone who works within a particular framework of information, seems entirely impossible to another who is focusing upon a different field of information. Instead of accusing our brethren of being devious or unfaithful, perhaps it would help to try to understand why someone does not believe a particular passage should be understood in its most literal sense. We may never agree completely, but a charitable respect for one another would surely manifest Christian love.
(Written originally ten years ago. Revised and submitted to Sharper Iron, December, 2019)
Greg Barkman 2018 Bio
G. N. Barkman received his BA and MA from BJU and later founded Beacon Baptist Church in Burlington, NC where has pastored since 1973. In addition, Pastor Barkman airs the Beacon Broadcast on twenty radio stations. He and his wife, Marti, have been blessed with four daughters and nine grandchildren.
- 387 views
There’s definitely some talking past each other in the debate on this topic. I don’t know if this helps, but here goes…
I wouldn’t personally claim “literal whenever possible.” The term I normally use is “literal as the starting point” or “literal as default.” Even that has limitations because, as Greg has pointed out, we often take things figuratively when we’re reading, without consciously deciding to. Reading is mostly intuitive. Interpretation seeks (or should seek) to more intentionally question our reading—to discern what the reasons are for how we’re reading something.
The “literal as starting point” or “literal as default” is closer to what some dispensationalists have described as “normal” or “natural” or “regular” interpretation, preferring these terms over “literal.” What we’re trying to say is that the Bible is written to be understood and, at least as far as language and reading are concerned, it should be interpreted like we normally interpret any written document. We take it to mean what it says unless there is sufficient reason to take it some other way.
That’s not “literal whenever possible,” because lots of passages can be read literally but the literal reading is improbable. If we really did “literal whenever possible,” we’d end up like Amelia Bedelia (which is pretty close to some interpretations I’ve actually heard from pulpits or read in one place or another!).
So, we’re really talking about a range of probability with “very likely figurative” at one end and “very likely literal” at the other end. And it’s really not possible to read sensibly unless “very likely literal” is the starting point/default. Figurative interpretations need to be justified. Sometimes the justification is easy and obvious. Sometimes only a prior commitment to a theological system that requires it can make a figurative interp. of a passage plausible.
I’m not against theological systems. We all have them and bring them to the Book when we interpret it. The question is whether we’ll have an orderly system or a chaotic one (which is the sort of system the anti-system folks actually have). And then, if it’s orderly and intentional, the question becomes is it correct, is it sound? The Christian faith itself is a belief system about the world, about how we got here, about what matters, about right and wrong, etc. Christians aren’t usually shy about that. We shouldn’t be shy about theological interpretive systems either. A system is only bad to the degree it’s incorrect or misused.
On the debate about covenant theology vs. dispensationalism… The debate isn’t about the small stuff. It has to do with major questions—the degree to which promises can be understood by us today to mean what they certainly were understood to mean when given, maybe with additional insight in the NT, but not with reinvention.
The term “replacement theology” may be rejected by many CT proponents, but it’s hair splitting. When you take something physical promised to a group of people with an obvious ethnic identity and declare it to be entirely converted into a spiritual promise to a completely different group of people (the church), you have done some replacing. I’m willing to call it other things sometimes in the interest of peace, I suppose, but it is what it is.
For further reading on “literal interp” in general, I recommend Snoeberger’s series on literal hermeneutics.
Paul Henebury’s series on the biblical covenants argues very strongly as well, not for classical dispensationalism, but against spiritualizing promises and predictions that were certainly not meant to be only spiritual at the time. Readers who haven’t been following that series should start at the beginning (which I’m not sure we’ve actually got here at SI, but this is pretty close.)
OK, long post already, and probably nobody will read it all, but one more thing: Much of what is often termed “figurative reading” or “spiritualizing” in the NT is adding depth and insight to the literal, not rejecting the literal. The difference is important.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My favorite Amelia story from when I was a kid:
- Amelia goes to work in an office
- Boss tells her to “file these,” gesturing to huge stack of paper
- Amelia gets to work
- Boss returns to find Amelia with a nail file, slowly turning paper into pile of trash
She did what he said, though!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Aaron, thanks for posting, and thanks as well for your lengthy analysis and comments. I heartily agree with your characterization of the literal hermeneutic as using literal as the starting point. That’s actually one of the things I was trying to say in my article, but you said it better.
It’s clear to me that both DT’s and non-DT’s, who are conservative, begin with a literal starting point. That’s the only possible way to begin. It’s also clear that both DT’s and non-DT’s interpret many things figuratively. It is impossible to do otherwise. The debate centers around that portion of Scripture that DT’s take in the most literal sense, and non-DT’s interpret figuratively. The problem is that there are no divinely given rules to determine how much literal interpretation and how much figurative interpretation is correct. Those decisions are far more subjective than many are willing to admit. That’s why both DT’s and non-DT’s can be exceedingly dogmatic about their respective approaches, each believing that their conclusions are clear and mandated by a proper reading of the text. In the end, we will each have to wrestle with our interpretations according to the light we have been given. Debates are helpful to challenge assumptions and help us examine and re-examine our conclusions. Hopefully, we will be able to be charitable and respectful toward those with whom we disagree.
G. N. Barkman
One thing that strikes me is that a “literal when possible” hermeneutic ignores the fact that entire genre are not literalistic in how they work—a huge portion of poetry works this way, as well as a lot of Jesus’ parables. They are “truthy” but not literally true, and yes, there’s a big Amelia Bedelia risk there. Narrative, on the flip side, is generally safe to assume it’s most likely literal in its intent.
So I wonder whether, in our efforts to get “essentially literal”, we are sometimes messing ourselves up and impeding our attempts to understand Scripture in its literary meaning.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, you have raised another important aspect of this question. But, there are some who are so committed to a literal whenever possible hermeneutic, that they deny that differences in literary genre should be allowed to alter the most literal approach to a passage. Such thinking seems extreme to me, but is a good illustration of how dogmatic some become with the literal hermeneutic.
G. N. Barkman
I preached Isaiah 40:1-11 this past Sunday, as a Christmas-time sermon. How should one take that passage?
- as referring to the return from Babylon?
- as referring to Israel’s eschatological victory through the Messiah?
- as a message of hope for any of God’s people, in any time?
When Isaiah wrote Isa 40, Babylon was just a regional power. It could be a prophesy of future deliverance from exile, but the way Mark (and the other synoptics) quote the passage and apply it to John the Baptist seems to suggest at least #2, and likely #3 (above). If you only make it #2, you cut off the curch from the comfort this passage brings. But, to make it #3 you’d have to endorse sensus plenior, which some hermeneutics guys would cringe at (e.g. Robert Thomas).
So, what do you do? I took option #3, which I know some people would really disagree with. But, Robert Thomas and his hermeneutics text isn’t inspired!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
….per Isaiah 40:1-11, is that it’s entirely possible that a passage could have multiple meanings, or that a prophecy might have multiple fulfillments. A pastor/preacher is free to choose one of the three alternatives Tyler proposes in a sermon, for sure, but overall, we can do ourselves huge harm by “shoehorning” a passage into “one main message”. Personally, do I have to choose one of Tyler’s alternatives? Exegetically, I don’t think so.
Plus, a beautiful oratorio by Handel, of course. Hopefully, Tyler got someone to sing that before the sermon. :^)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
That’s the point - does a text have a “fuller meaning” that wasn’t apparent to the original author and/or that seems to go beyond the immediate context of the writing? This impacts what you do with Joel 2, Isaiah 40 and Jer 31.
The default is to say “no,” and stick to the original context for the original audience. Generally, this seems right. But, the author of Hebrews didn’t apply Heb 8 to Israel. He applied it to the church, and used the present-tense over and over. Mark used Isaiah 40. One can try to make the quotation analagous, and say it wasn’t a direct citation but more like “this is LIKE what the OT says here.” This is what DTs do with Joel 2/Acts 2. At a certain point this approach can seem desperate.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I remember the sensus plenior debate from seminary… but not the details.
If I’m not mistaken, few, if any disagree that the NT can give a “fuller sense” to an OT passage. This is different from our supplying a fuller sense from our imagination or from what we think are parallel themes, or from looking at NT revelation and reading it back into OT passages that aren’t referred to at all in the NT. The latter gets into a bit of a gray area, I think. There can be no question that God had the entire plan in mind before He said “let there be light,” so the themes of the NT were part of the OT context, in a way, before they were actually written. But it can get very speculative… and it’s way out on a limb to use that kind of retroactive freighting to give OT texts a fundamentally different sense than the original audience was clearly intended to get from it.
… which happens all the time in some of the commentaries, and sermons, etc.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, before we worry about reading back into the OT ideas that are not referred to in the NT, let’s be willing to carefully examine all the OT texts that are cited in the NT.
G. N. Barkman
I agree that we all have work to do to determine biblical interpretation. I have focussed much attention on God’s oaths and His views on those who don’t keep their oaths. To me this provides an interpretive framework to which we can attach more disputed passages.
Of course, those I disagree with simply spiritualize God’s oaths, claiming the NT gives them warrant to do it. They also turn many NT passages into symbolic representations of Christ and the Church, especially those which have an uncanny connection with OT covenant promises.
It is ironic that this interesting and useful post from Brother Barkman comes after one by yours truly where I show that Ezekiel’s Temple (Ezek. 40ff.) is not to be transformed into a symbol.
Finally, although I am not imputing anything but good motives to him, Greg’s comment above to Aaron seems to assume that those who don’t interpret the NT like he does are not “willing to carefully examine all the OT texts that are cited in the NT.” I have already mentioned (twice) to him that many non-DT interpreters do not, for example, interpret Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2 in the way he insists it must be understood. We’re not going to get very far under such conditions.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, I don’t dispute your claim about non-DT interpreters. I don’t think I have “insisted” it must be explained according to my understanding anymore than Larry “insists” it must be understood according to his understanding. I am simply suggesting a different understanding than Larry’s, and giving my reasons for why I understand it that way.
As far as my response above to Aaron, I am simply appealing for caution. It seems to me that Aaron is “jumping the gun” by inserting his disapproval of the way some handle OT texts that are not mentioned in the NT. As far as I can tell, no one has said anything about such texts. Aaron addressed something similar in his first response to my article, objecting to redirecting to the NT Church promises made to Israel. But there was nothing in my article about that subject. It seems to me that Aaron is raising objections that no one has mentioned. Forgive me if I’m being a bit sensitive, but I thought a short word of caution was warranted in this situation. I agree. We’re not likely to get very far under such conditions.
G. N. Barkman
I accept that the article doesn’t indulge in textual analysis. But it doesn’t stand in isolation from things you have said recently in other threads. I did not say that you insisted upon anything re. the interpretation of the NT, just that your comment “seems to assume that those who don’t interpret the NT like he does are not ‘willing to carefully examine all the OT texts that are cited in the NT.’”
So although your article does not refer to “redirecting to the NT Church promises made to Israel” we all know that to be a major interpretive point of disagreement between us.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, you are far better read than I, but you keep making a point of “even some non-DT’s don’t agree with you on the meaning of Acts 2,” and again, the same thing regarding Galatians 6:16. I’m not sure I find that as significant as you do, since you can find lots of commentators with differing interpretations of many texts.
But just our of curiosity, are there any DT’s who believe Ezekiel’s Temple is symbolic? (I haven’t had time to search this out.) If the answer is Yes, does that fact negate your literal interpretation? (And if not, why is that so important in regard to Acts 2 and Galatians 6? I know I’m sticking my neck out here, since the answer may be No, but I suspect there may be some.)
G. N. Barkman
Actually Greg are a few. Harry Ironside, J. Sidlow Baxter and G.N.H Peters (if the last two can be considered DT),
But these men are being inconsistent with their stated hermeneutic, whereas you are being consistent with yours in Acts 2 and Gal. 6 (at least).
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion