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.

Discussion

DT refers to “dispensational theologian”, not “delirium tremens”, right? A fair number of people at my church work at “Teen Challenge”, a local alcohol/drug rehab center, so I’d hear the latter a bit more than the former.

On a more serious note, it strikes me that the extremely rectangular regions drawn out in Ezekiel for the various parties taking part in the Temple might be seen as suggesting either (a) some great bulldozer work by the Lord in the end times or (b) a metaphorical interpretation might be warrantable even under ordinary dispensational exegetical assumptions.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Thanks, Paul, for being honest with this interesting piece of information. So what you are saying is that if DT’s believe the Ezekiel Temple is symbolic, it has no relevance to your position because they are being inconsistent. (In your viewpoint.) But apparently, if some non-DT’s take a different position than mine on Acts 2 and Galatians 6, that weakens my position? Forgive me for saying so, but that sounds a bit “fishy” to me.

G. N. Barkman

Greg, I’m not saying it weakens your position, just that your position there (which was stated quite dogmatically) needs more than assertion to back it up.

DT’s who spiritualize Ezekiel’s temple are being inconsistent because they are ignoring many OT texts (e.g. Isa. 2; Ezek. 37; Zech. 14) which speak of it. I think Ironside’s reasons are poor.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I agree with the two options and go for ‘A’ for several reasons, which have been given elsewhere. Texts like Isa. 2:2 and Zech. 14:4f. indicate that there will be great transformations of the land in Israel at Christ’s return. The metaphorical view actually exacerbates the problem because of passages like Num. 25; Jer. 33; Ezek. 37 and Mal. 3, which then have themselves to be morphed into metaphors. There is also the problem of one of the most over-extended “metaphors” in all of literature if Ezek. 40 - 48 is indeed metaphorical. What, e.g. does the dividing of the Zadokites from the other Levites signify?

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Most of those that I associate with are covenant theologians. I sympathize with their approach, but I struggle with Israel and the church being the same. On the other hand I am not a hard core dispensationalist. I often hold onto the fact that in Revelations 21, which is of things to come, that there is a distinction between the church and Israel (Gates vs. foundation of the new jerusalem). Why would there be a distinction if they are the same. This is the part that I struggle with. If there is just one passage that shows distinction, then they cannot be the same.

[Paul Henebury]

There is also the problem of one of the most over-extended “metaphors” in all of literature if Ezek. 40 - 48 is indeed metaphorical. What, e.g. does the dividing of the Zadokites from the other Levites signify?

I don’t have an answer to the specific question you asked about the Zadokites, but I was just reading the chapter about them. The chapter mentioned that the Zadokites would be offering sin offerings, and I was curious if those sin offerings would have the same meaning in the future as what an OT reader would understand the meaning to be as they would read the passage. Has Christ’s once-for-all-time death changed the way a future sin offering needs to be understood in a way that an OT reader would not have realized?

Does Revelation 21 show a distinction between Israel and the Church, or does it indicate a merger? Both are represented as present and equally a part of the same bride of Christ.

G. N. Barkman

Paul, your characterization of my strong assertion must apply to Acts 2. I didn’t even bring up Galatians 6. You did, and then added the “even some non-DT’s don’t equate Israel with the church” here. It’s a bit frustrating to have you put a supposed assertion in my mouth and then shoot it down by the non-DT argument. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, and attacking positions you presume I hold which have not been mentioned.

As to the Acts 2 passage, please forgive me if my statement sounded like a strong assertion without evidence. My intention was simply to say that this is the way the passage sounds to me. I am not relying upon this or that commentator for support. My understanding has not been influenced by others, at least not that I am aware. It has grown out of my personal wrestling with this and similar passages.

G. N. Barkman

A few years ago after teaching through Revelation I came to the decision that the “two peoples” of God (church and Israel) will be merged in eternity. There will be people from Israel and from the church, of course, but the distinctions won’t have any real significance. Its analagous to me being from Tacoma, WA and another guy being from Berlin. Yes, we come from different places but it really doesn’t matter if you’re in God’s family.

Never spent much time figuring out if that put me outside the pale of DT orthodoxy. It might.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Kevin,

The answer to your first question about how those in the future will take the language of sin offerings is “Yes.” This is evident in the Hebrew tense (Piel) used in the atonement language in Ezek. 40ff.

So your second question naturally asks about any conflict with the book of Hebrews. You ask, “Has Christ’s once-for-all-time death changed the way a future sin offering needs to be understood in a way that an OT reader would not have realized?” My answer to you is “No.” How can this be? Well, for a start, Hebrews is often not read with enough care. There main foci in the latter half of the book are 1. the replacement of the old (Mosaic) covenant with the New covenant (Heb. 6:20; 7:12-16). 2. the change in the office of the High Priest (Heb. 7:26-28; 8:1-4; 10:19-22). 3. The High Priest’s offering at the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:7, 11-12, 23-28; 10:3-4). Daily sacrifices were necessary because the Day of Atonement sacrifice did not suffice (Heb. 10:11).

One of the interesting things about Ezekiel’s new temple is that there is no mention of a High Priest and there is no Day of Atonement. Therefore, if the main emphasis on the role of Christ in Hebrews is on His once-for-all atonement within “the most Holy Place” in Heaven, it mirrors the Day of Atonement and does not NECESSARILY impact the daily offering.

In the majority Dispensational position (and in my own view) Christ’s sacrifice abrogates the Day of Atonement offering, but in the coming Kingdom sin is still present (e.g. Isa. 65:20; Rev. 20:7-9), which means that sin offerings - at least for some people - are still necessary. This gels with what we find in Ezekiel.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do not believe Ezek. 40-48 contradicts the book of Hebrews.

Finally, on the Zadokites; Zadok was from the line of Phinehas (1 Chron. 6:4-8), and God made a covenant with Phinehas in Numbers 25. Therefore, it is interesting that the line of Phinehas through Zadok is preserved to approach to God in the new temple, whereas the Non-Zadokites cannot.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Greg,

I respect you and you don’t have to apologize for making a strong assertion. You said, “It’s a bit frustrating to have you put a supposed assertion in my mouth and then shoot it down by the non-DT argument. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, and attacking positions you presume I hold which have not been mentioned.”

Sure, and I am not trying to be unfair. But we have had many interactions, and you do believe that “true spiritual Israel is the church.” and ” The church is the fulfillment of promises made to Israel. Israel has not been replaced, but promises God made to Israel have been fulfilled in spiritual Israel.” But I haven’t seen you use Gal. 6:16 so I AM making an assumption that you believe that the Church is “the Israel of God.”

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul, thanks for the response and clarification. As I indicated earlier, I’m a bit ambivalent about the importance of Galatians 6:16. I don’t see the text as a home run for either position. It’s not that clear and can be shaded either direction. If you believe, as I do, that the church is spiritual Israel, you understand Galatians 6:16 in that light. If you don’t, you think it indicates a distinction between Israel and the Church. One’s prior understanding colors the way this text is understood. I don’t think it is a major text for non-Dt’s. The support for the non-DT position is scattered throughout the Gospels and Epistles with or without Galatians 6:16.

Which is why I found your addressing my supposed position puzzling. You seemed to assume I considered it an important text, and tried to weaken it’s significant with your “even some non-Dt’s don’t believe Galatians 6:16 supports a spiritual Israel.” So? I didn’t say it did. You’ve chided me and others at times for raising new issues while failing to answer what you specifically said. I have probably been guilty of that at times. I believe you are guilty of the same in this instance.

G. N. Barkman

Yes, I think I am guilty of that. I am sorry for it, though it’s not deliberate.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Thank you, Paul. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas season!

G. N. Barkman

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.

Who does this? I don’t recall any mainstream voice who does this.

Here are a few quotes on the subject, mostly older to show that this isn’t new. I think we throw around terms like “literal” without a common dictionary. For some people, “literal” means “literalistic,” i.e., a denial of metaphor or imagery. But few who argue for “literal interpretation” mean that. A literal interpretation is an interpretation of the words in their historical and literary context to determine what the author intended to communicate. It doesn’t ignore genre. It is based on genre. Here’s a quote from 1958:

“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).

Of course Ryrie addressed this:

“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. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

And Ryrie cites Lange,

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).

To me, the question is whether or not we can know anything by language. Of course we all agree that we can, but I would suggest that many have no reason to believe that, based on their hermeneutic.

If I were to praise this incredible article that Greg wrote here about the why Major League Baseball should abandon the designated hitter, everyone here would object, especially Greg. And the reason is because you grant my hermeneutic—that words have meaning in a context and that meaning is determined by an author.

And no one here would accept it if I said, “Well, there’s a deeper meaning that Greg didn’t know about.”

So why do we do that with Scripture?