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.
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.
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?
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.
Paul, I don’t think you were addressing my brief post. However, I would call a non-DT reading of Ezekiel 40-48 figurative, not spiritualizing (although some clearly spiritualize it). I’m sure you’re aware of the different figurative views: ideal temple or a real heavenly temple given in earthly terms and fulfilled in the new creation as the dwelling place of God. In other words, literal fulfillment in a non-structural way (G. K. Beale). Ezekiel could only use a vocabulary and description with which his readers were familiar to describe something even more expansive and more glorious. This figurative view has much in its favor especially when compared to the eschatological fulfillment in Revelation when all creation becomes the temple of God.
Only a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 does justice to the profound length, detail, and content of the passage. As well, taking the Temple in Ezekiel to be a literal temple on the earth is essentially tied to the necessity of an intermediate earthly kingdom.
Paul and Don, I believe you have both misrepresented me. You both characterized my statements about Paul’s rod as “being a good excuse for spiritualizing Ezekiel’s temple.” (To use Paul’s words.) No, I used it as a second example of how some people see a particular text as being clearly literal, whereas others, with equal desire to understand the true meaning of the text, believe it is figurative. I offered no link between these two texts except to offer them both as examples of how what appears to be obvious to one does not seem obvious to another.
It was Don who first asserted that I was using the rod text as support for Ezekiel’s temple, then Paul picked up Don’s assertion and assumed that was what I said. It was not. I don’t want to misrepresent Paul’s position anymore than he wants to misrepresent mine. We have substance enough to discuss thoughtfully without misrepresenting one another’s positions.
To recap. I first used the rod passage as an example of a text that could be taken literally, but nearly everyone agrees is figurative. My point was to examine how we determine whether a text is literal or figurative. Although the figurative conclusion is obvious, determining the hermeneutical principles that guide that conclusion is not so clear. That conclusion is more subjective and intuitive than objective. I then offered Ezekiel’s Temple as a second example. Paul is convinced that the Temple is literal, and offers several reasons to support that conclusion. But they rest upon hermeneutical principles that if applied to Paul’s rod would require a literal understanding. DT’s strongly reject this assertion. But my hope is that perhaps it will help us understand why the conclusions that seem so obvious and inevitable to one, are far from compelling to others equally committed to understanding the author’s intended meaning in every passage of scripture.
The literal whenever possible hermeneutic itself is an assumption, not a revelation, about how scripture should be interpreted. All of the supporting reasons for that particular hermeneutic are based upon logic (deductive reasoning), not revelation. Many, like myself, have concluded that scripture itself fails to support this assumption. That’s my bottom line point in this entire discussion.
G. N. Barkman
I get what Greg (and Steve) is saying, but there are good reasons to see the “rod” as figurative. They have provided no reasons for seeing 9 chapters in Ezekiel (plus all the natural references to it in Ezek. 36-37; Isa. 2, Zech. 14 etc) as figures.
I have provided many reasons for taking Ezek. 40-48 in its plain-sense. It is supposed that the reason I do this is because I hold to “literal wherever possible” interpretation. Well, so does everyone. The difference is that owing to certain assumptions on both sides we differ on what is possible.
Over the years I have set out several lines of proof for my hermeneutical position. They include, but are not exhausted by, the following:
1. God’s actions follow His words. He does what He says He is going to do wherever that can be checked.
2. God makes covenants in order to be believed (e.g. Heb. 6:13-18). Covenant oaths are not transformable (Gal. 3:15), and God holds people to them (cf. Ezek. 17:15c). He surely holds Himself to the same standard.
3. I concocted the Rules of Affinity to measure the amount of agreement between what we say we believe based on our proof-texts and and what those texts actually say in context. They also measure the amount of deductive inference by said interpreters. CT’s employ large amounts of inference to make their texts conform to their doctrines.
4. I have shown that the OT consistently teaches the same “Creation Project” based around God’s oaths. This Project combines eschatology and teleology and includes the nation of Israel, the Nations, the Church on this planet.
5. FAITH is not possible if we don’t know what God means. If God can swear oaths in the OT but then change their meaning beyond recognition, then He can do the same to us. We cannot please God without faith, but we cannot be sure that He will stick by what He has said He will do, so what do we have faith in?
6. If the above is true then this effects the nature and character of God Himself. God as a communicator often does not mean what He seems to mean (i.e. He changes His meaning down the road). Hence, God’s nature include equivocation as an attribute! But if so we cannot be sure of anything He says. (Obviously I don’t agree with this, but it is logical), then God’s promises become disingenuous.
7. I’ll stop with this one. If the above is so then Jesus had no business expecting the Pharisees to believe He was the Christ. I know many will not think this through, but it is the natural conclusion and I have tried to prove it elsewhere.
Now folks are free to pick fault with what I have written, but it cannot be boiled down to “literal wherever possible.”
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
The only clearly good reason I can see for taking the rod as figurative is that it seems to make better sense than to take it literally. As I’ve stated twice before, if a similar statement were found in the Quran, would anyone find it difficult to take literally? It’s only because of the broader context of Paul’s life and demeanor that we find it difficult to take literally. It just doesn’t fit what we know about Paul. In the Quran, a literal rod fits well with what we know about Mohammad. This “analogy of scripture” is what drives much of our interpretation. Paul H studies Ezekiel’s Temple, and believes a literal rendering best fits his broader understanding of Scripture. Others read the same passage, and believe a literal temple is impossible to reconcile with their broader understanding of scripture. In truth, I find some of the temple descriptions very difficult to imagine literally. Is it possible they could be literal? Of course, with God all things are possible. If God intends to fulfill this literally He is certainly able to do so. Is it likely God intends to fulfill this literally? That seems very unlikely to me.
For example, like Steve, I have a problem with renewed sacrifices. Christ fulfilled the purpose for Temple sacrifices when He died. His was the ultimate and final sacrifice. Not only are none now needed, to return to literal sacrifices seems to insult the once for all sacrifice that Christ has made. (Not terribly different from the Roman mass.) Paul believes that the absence of a Day of Atonement is sufficient to satisfy these concerns. I find that unconvincing. I doubt that any animal sacrifice could please God after the cross. I believe the book of Hebrews make that point.
Paul thinks animal sacrifices are appropriate in connection with Ezekiel’s temple because there will be sinners present at that time. Isn’t that what the cross of Christ addresses? There are plenty of sinners around today, but we aren’t making animal sacrifices. We point men to the cross, the all sufficient sacrifice that has been made. What’s going to change that reality in the future?
G. N. Barkman
Discussion