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
After thirty posts in response to my article, “Literal or Figurative,” nobody has touched the only text I used. Several have addressed other texts, and offered objections to interpretations of various texts that I did not cite. So to try to get back to the main point of the article, I have a few questions for Paul H, or anyone else who wants to answer.
Should we interpret Paul’s “rod” as literal or figurative? If not literal, why not? How do we know he is using a figure of speech instead of literal language? If not literal, why is this not being inconsistent with the literal whenever possible hermeneutic? What informs us that we should not interpret Paul’s statement inductively, rather than deductively? Or to address Larry’s concern, if we don’t take Paul’s statement for what it says, how can we know anything for certain? Who could be expected to know the hidden meaning of Paul’s rod?
In the case of I Corinthians 4:21, it all seems so obvious, and to raise questions seems foolish. But those are largely subjective and intuitive sentiments. It’s fairly easy to apply a little common sense to a text like this one. But many of the objections Paul and Larry and others raise about non-DT interpretations could be applied with equal validity to the figurative interpretation of Paul’s rod. Interpretation, like beauty, is owing more to the eye of the beholder than to clearly revealed and consistently applied rules of interpretation.
G. N. Barkman
In the case of I Corinthians 4:21, it all seems so obvious, and to raise questions seems foolish.
I think you answered your own question. The “rod” is an image of discipline and that is obvious. Does anyone dispute that?
I think you demonstrate a misunderstanding or misuse of “literal” confusing it with “literalistic.” You ask why this isn’t consistent with a “literal when possible” hermeneutic. Again, the answer seems obvious, as you say: It isn’t possible because no one would that here. “Literal” includes metaphors, symbols, and the like.
Some things aren’t so obvious to everybody. See the Marburg Colloquy and the dispute over “this IS my body.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Well, literarily, we’d start with the fact that 1 Cor. 4:21 is really a rhetorical question, no? It’s not poetry, it’s not narrative, it’s not prophecy, but rather dialogue—or perhaps we might say monologue with an implied likely response from the Corinthians. So we would process it really in the same way we’d process the old parents’ challenge to their children: “If your friends were all jumping off a cliff, would you do that, too?”. In fact, the parental rebuke is all the more appropriate in light of 1 Cor. 4:15, and so we would infer that, whatever the preferred methods of church discipline in that area, that the reference to the rod is going to be seen in light of verses like Proverbs 23:14.
Again, I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of us have stepped in a hole as we try to respond to liberal theologians who say “well, this passage doesn’t mean what everybody thinks it means”. We think it’s as simple as saying “this is what these words mean, there we go”, and in reality, there’s an entire layer of interpretation that we’ve skipped—and hence the very people we’re trying to convince won’t take us seriously.
And on the light side, nobody’s responded to my question about DTs, either. :^)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Does anyone think Paul was asking them if he should come with an actual stick to beat them with?
We think it’s as simple as saying “this is what these words mean, there we go”, and in reality, there’s an entire layer of interpretation that we’ve skipped—and hence the very people we’re trying to convince won’t take us seriously.
What’s the layer that’s being skipped?
Some things aren’t so obvious to everybody.
Obviously.
Greg,
I don’t think your “rod” example proves what you think it does. We don’t need the “analogy of Scripture” to understand what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 4:21, we just need to practice reading comprehension. “What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” By contrasting the rod with a spirit love and gentleness, Paul tells us what he means. No appeal to some greater Pauline theology is necessary.
I agree that the figurative use of “rod” is obvious. But why it’s obvious isn’t quite so easy to explain. As I said in my article, the same word used in the Quran would more likely be understood as literal. As helpful as Paul V’s comments are, that still doesn’t nail it. A literal meaning for rod could also be contrasted with “love and a spirit of gentleness.” If the meaning were literal, what words would provide a more likely contrast?
The point being, these issues are a lot less clear than many of my DT friends on SI want to make it. DT’s want to excuse themselves from their normal hermeneutical rules for passages like I Corinthians 4:21 by saying it’s so obvious. But obvious, like beauty, is still largely in the eye of the beholder. To me, it’s obvious that Ezekiel’s Temple should be understood as figurative. To Paul H, it’s obvious that it should be considered literal. Paul points to his consistent literal hermeneutic to support his conclusion. But that same hermeneutic, applied to Paul’s rod, would yield a literal result. Who gets to decide which texts require the “consistent” hermeneutic, and which get a pass?
Everyone agrees that we must begin with a basically literal reading of the text. Everyone also agrees that there are times when literal is not what the author had in mind. Now, who’s the referee who gets to make the call about which approach applies to which texts?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]To me, it’s obvious that Ezekiel’s Temple should be understood as figurative. To Paul H, it’s obvious that it should be considered literal. Paul points to his consistent literal hermeneutic to support his conclusion. But that same hermeneutic, applied to Paul’s rod, would yield a literal result. Who gets to decide which texts require the “consistent” hermeneutic, and which get a pass?
Come on Greg, you are trying to compare an incidental metaphor like “rod” to an extended revelation in a prophet and say they are equivalent? You ought to know better than that. That’s really a ridiculous argument.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, an extended metaphor is still as much a metaphor as a brief one. For example, does the fact that the book of Revelation is twenty-two chapters long make it less likely to be heavily freighted with symbols and figures?
G. N. Barkman
A Dispensationalist posted that short metaphors are allowed, but not extended ones. Is this an accepted rule of interpretation among DT’s? (I’ve never heard it before.) Does any other DT want to add his endorsement to this principle?
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson]Come on Greg, you are trying to compare an incidental metaphor like “rod” to an extended revelation in a prophet and say they are equivalent? You ought to know better than that. That’s really a ridiculous argument.
The temple/sacrifice question has surfaced several times. In seminary I was taught the memorial view, that the “sin offerings” would look back to the cross. If one accepts a so-called “literal” understanding of Ezekiel 40-48 then that’s one way to avoid the teaching of Hebrews 10 and redefine “sin offering.” Any way you slice it, I can’t fathom any return to any sacrifice, memorial or otherwise. This is a great problem for DT IMO.
There is a real misrepresentation of my position here. I do not simply say that “literal whenever” is my lone stance. In fact, in this very thread I have referred to the covenants of God. Here I give 10 lines of evidence for Ezekiel’s temple being literal.”
Also, remember this post: https://sharperiron.org/article/covenant-ezekiel-part-5
The “rod” in Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians is a figure of speech for “punitive” or at least “in the spirit of firm rebuke.” Since the rod DID actually inculcate these things noone was in any doubt as to Paul’s meaning. Years ago a prominent CT said it was time the gauntlet was thrown down to these Dispensationalists. Everyone knew that he didn’t mean an actual medieval glove.
But to leap from this sort of thing to saying there is good excuse for spiritualizing Ezekiel’s temple, with all its very detailed and pointed language, and its future setting, plus the fact that there is no record in the OT or Second Temple Judaism that ANYONE thought it was not literal, is a whopping leap quite unlike the example of the rod. On such a basis one can morph any passage! No, the person who makes this claim must show how a passage the size of 1 Corinthians, with so much detail, and so much covenantal backing can be treated as a giant metaphor.
I don’t have time to fully engage this, but at least study my links above before responding.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion