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
Larry, give me a gold star. I read it all. We continue to assert our positions, but neither of us is persuaded by what the other says. I am tempted to call it a truce. Except I reminded that you are willing to consider analogy or similarity in Peter’s use of Joel, but not figuratively. That’s baffling. You seem to be saying it must be understood literally unless it can’t. Or, Joel’s words must be understood literally, but not Peter’s. Why not Peter’s words should be understood literally, which means Joel’s must be understood in something less than a strictly literal manner? Your repeated appeals to normal patters of communication are less than convincing. They seem to boil down to, “The words must be understood that way I understand them. Anything else places them outside the normal patterns of communication.” Balderdash! You are making yourself the standard of what is acceptable and normal communication. Sorry. Others, who are operating within exactly the same patterns of communication arrive at different conclusions.
As I have stated above, you dogmatically assert which passages must be interpreted literally, and which must therefore be interpreted in a less than literal manner so that they do not contradict one another. So do I. I just choose different passages to interpret literally and therefore different ones to adjust accordingly. We are both doing essentially the same thing but in opposite directioins. That seems obvious to me. You refuse to acknowledge that any such choices that differ from yours are legitimate. You alone, and those who agree with you, become the ultimate standard by which to judge the vadlidity of interpretation. That’s too heavy a mantle for your fallible shoulders.
G. N. Barkman
Food for thought:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Who knew there were so many different views on the NC (and Paul H’s isn’t listed)?
http://mikevlach.blogspot.com/2019/07/six-views-on-new-covenant-fulfillment.html?m=1
[pvawter]Who knew there were so many different views on the NC (and Paul H’s isn’t listed)?
http://mikevlach.blogspot.com/2019/07/six-views-on-new-covenant-fulfillment.html?m=1
Thanks for the link. Interesting that of the six views five are dispensational. I’m not sure how a supposedly literal hermeneutic lends itself to such confusion.
[Steve Davis]Thanks for the link. Interesting that of the six views five are dispensational. I’m not sure how a supposedly literal hermeneutic lends itself to such confusion.
Haha! That’s funny. Reminds me of the RCC use of the variety of Protestant denominations to argue against sola scriptura. I mean, if the Bible is the only rule of faith, then why do any of us disagree at all? Of course, their objection is silly.
Showing that 1 Cor. 4:21 uses figurative language when it speaks of “a rod” is very different from showing that Ezekiel 40-48 is figurative language for the Church (or something else). To show that the latter is figurative language requires addressing and answering numerous problems caused by taking that approach. I believe that it would be helpful to have a careful and extended discussion of these problems to see if supporters of the figurative language view are able to sustain the viability of their position under close scrutiny.
I’m not sure how a supposedly literal hermeneutic lends itself to such confusion.
At the risk of beating an old drum, I think it’s because of a continued misunderstanding of “literal.” Some people here seem to think literal does not include metaphors, symbols, and other figures. So “literal” means “wooden.” But that is false. “Literal” means “normal.” People can differ on what the metaphors mean or how they are used. That isn’t surprising at all, IMO. A “literal” reading of a metaphor reads the metaphor as a metaphor or the symbol as a symbol. “Literal” does not read a symbol as an actual description.
I was thinking of this again this morning as I read Dan 7-12 in preparation to finish preaching the book of Daniel in 2020. It strikes me again how odd this conversation is. Why identify all these symbols and images if it just flattens into one thing as people would have us believe Joel was used? The images are images, but they are images or symbols that mean things. So the literal understanding of “horn” is king or ruler. Do we have to explain that? Probably, but probably like if we went back to that time period we would have to explain what “Big Cheese” meant when talking about an organiziational heirarchy.
So, IMO, we overcomplicate because we think the Bible is something other than normal human communication, given by God progressively for the readers and hearers at each stage and later stages.
Agreed. But what you don’t seem to understand is that normal does not always communicate the same way to every person. Consider the number of times the disciples misunderstood Jesus. For example, Jesus said, “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.” They thought He was talking about literal bread. He was not. He was using leaven as a metaphor for false teaching.
Here’s the problem as I see it. When something seems obvious to you, such as the figurative use of Paul’s rod, you plead that this is common normal usage. Everyone understands it clearly and in the same way. No explanation for how hermeneutics applies to this situation. It’s just too obvious. But when something doesn’t seem obvious to you, such as the figurative language describing Ezekiel’s temple, you argue that symbolic language is so far from normal that to understand it in a figurative way is to defy the norms of common communication and render conversations meaningless and impossible.
Wrong. Normal communication includes analogies, comparisons, and figurative language. Often, literal and figurative language are closely joined. John the Baptist said that when Jesus came, he would baptize you with the Holy Spirit (literal) and with fire (figurative). You may not agree that Ezekiel’s temple language is more likely figurative than literal, but to rule it outside the norms of common communication is nonsense. It almost sounds like dispensatioinalists are so accustomed to making such statements that they are beginning to believe their own assertions which are necessary to defend their (at times) unnatural literalism. Neither normal nor scriptural use of language supports these assertions.
G. N. Barkman
[Larry] The images are images, but they are images or symbols that mean things. So the literal understanding of “horn” is king or ruler. Do we have to explain that? Probably, but probably like if we went back to that time period we would have to explain what “Big Cheese” meant when talking about an organiziational heirarchy.Using this idea, wouldn’t the literal understanding of “temple” be “dwelling place of God?” I Cor 6:19 uses that understanding when it says “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;”
This understanding of temple is also present in Ephesians 2:19-22, in which people of the church are built together as a temple, a dwelling place of God. “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
So when Ezekiel sees a temple in his vision, isn’t it at least possible he could be seeing this Ephesians 2 temple that has risen up, that is literally a temple because it is a dwelling place of God?
Using this idea, wouldn’t the literal understanding of “temple” be “dwelling place of God?”
Yes, and in some contexts is a people and in some contexts a building, etc. Is it possible that Ezekiel was seeing the church? It doesn’t seem likely since Ephesians says the church was a mystery, unknown in the OT.
I think we are probably past the point of usefulness here so I won’t prolong this. But …
For example, Jesus said, “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.” They thought He was talking about literal bread. He was not. He was using leaven as a metaphor for false teaching.
Yes, and the problem was with their understanding. As I have said, misunderstanding is possible for a lot of reasons. That doesn’t invalidate the principle. The reason it can be misunderstood is because the words had meaning. Going back to Joel, what did the words mean before Peter used them at Pentecost? If you were to exegete Joel during the time of Joel, what would you conclude Joel was talking about?
Again, I refer to my imaginary conversation with a faithful Jew above, one that I would be interested in hearing your response to.
As for Ezekiel’s temple, I don’t think I have commented on that, at least that I recall.
You may not agree that Ezekiel’s temple language is more likely figurative than literal, but to rule it outside the norms of common communication is nonsense.
On this, I agree. I don’t think Ezekiel’s temple language is outside the norm. I think we should treat it like normal language.
It almost sounds like dispensatioinalists are so accustomed to making such statements that they are beginning to believe their own assertions which are necessary to defend their (at times) unnatural literalism.
I would hope dispensationalists believe their own assertions (though I don’t know what unnatural literalism you are talkinga bout). I think at heart you believe dispensationalist assertions because if you didn’t, we couldn’t even have a rational conversation. I don’t know how you communicate without them.
[Kevin Miller]No, Ezekiel was not seeing the Church in his vision because many details of Ezekiel 40-48 correspond historically with literal Israel but making them pertain to the Church leads to spiritualization that has no controls and makes detailed language either meaningless or makes it speak of things that are impossible to apply to the Church.Using this idea, wouldn’t the literal understanding of “temple” be “dwelling place of God?” I Cor 6:19 uses that understanding when it says “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;”
This understanding of temple is also present in Ephesians 2:19-22, in which people of the church are built together as a temple, a dwelling place of God. “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
So when Ezekiel sees a temple in his vision, isn’t it at least possible he could be seeing this Ephesians 2 temple that has risen up, that is literally a temple because it is a dwelling place of God?
[Larry]Yes, it was a mystery, but that doesn’t mean OT revelation would contradict future revelation that finally revealed whatever mysteries God was withholding. The OT revelation was just a partial picture.Using this idea, wouldn’t the literal understanding of “temple” be “dwelling place of God?”
Yes, and in some contexts is a people and in some contexts a building, etc. Is it possible that Ezekiel was seeing the church? It doesn’t seem likely since Ephesians says the church was a mystery, unknown in the OT.
In just the next chapter of Ephesians, after Paul speaks of the church as a temple/dwelling place of God, Paul talks about the mystery that is the church. Ephesians 3:6 says “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” So what promise would Gentiles be sharing with Israel that can finally be fulfilled through the gospel as both groups are made one body? Could it be some promise from the OT that OT readers would have only understood to be fulfilled in national Israel since the full truth hadn’t been revealed yet?
Paul goes on about this mystery in verses 7 through 12 “7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. “
So God’s intent from ages past was that God’s wisdom would be made known through the church. In Christ and through faith, we can approach God with freedom. This is what the power of the gospel accomplishes. Does the gospel only accomplish this for a short period of time we call “the church age” and then some other organization or system takes the place of the church? It seems to me that if some literal future sin sacrifices need to take place in some literal Israelite temple building, then that understanding would contradict the supreme importance God places on the church. We can go back again to Ephesians 2. Eph 2:13-16 says “13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.” Because of the blood of Christ, I find it hard to see how the future would contain a return to specific Israelite worship when a brand new humanity and a brand new body have been created. Especially when that new body is described as the dwelling place of God and as a mystery that the OT prophets did not understand.
So Ezekiel saw something, but what he saw was revealed to him in a way that kept hidden the mystery of the new dwelling place. Is it possible there will be a future temple building? Sure, but that seems to create a number of problems in regards to the importance of the church.
Discussion