Li teralis1Tl:

Confusing the Issue

I Bob Honan
Introduction
We understand and.interact with ideas based on
the words used top;esent them. Words are tools.
Some are effective; others are not. Just as a
skilled craftsman chooses the correct tool for each
job, we must use the correct word if we wish to
communicate without confusion.
Within Christianity, wisdom is not the ultimate
attainment. Love is far more important. In fact, if
we had all knowledge it woiJld be considered
worthless without love (1 Cor. 13: 2). But one key
to growing spiritually is to increase in wisdom. In .
the very same Epistle, Paul tells us "However, we
speak wisdom among those who are mature ., .
we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the .
hidden wisdom which, God ordained before the
ages for our glory .. . These things we also speak,
not in words which man's wisdom teaches but
which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual
things with spiritual (2:6, 7,13). In the next
chapter he connects their carnality with their
inahility to receive solid food. They stunted their
spiritual growth hy continuing to feed only on milk
when they should have been growing in wisdom.
Spiritual growth and knowledge of the Word are
supposed to go together. Without love, knowledge
merely puffs up (1 Cor. 8: 1), and without knowl-
edge, love is mere sentimentality. Therefore, we
must study God's Word and make the effort to
make it plain.
Defining 'Literal'
Words are supposed to have meaning and are
intended to communicate ideas hetween people.
For that to occur, however, there must be an
ohjective standard of meaning. It is fine for
Humpty Dumpty in Through the Lo.oking Glass
to tell Alice that words mean whatever he wants
them to mean, but in that case there is no real
conununication taking place. The word 'literal'
suffers from abuse by some who want to define it
contrary to its normal meaning.
The American Heritage dj.ctionaty defines
literal as "Reflecting or conforming to the exact or
/
primary meaning of a word or words .... " By
definition it has to do with individual words. It is
correctly used to indicate whether a word, phrase,
or passage is a figure of speech or whether the
words indicate their strict dictionary definition.
Unfortunately, some try to use 'literal,' not in
. reference to a word or words, but as a description
of their approach to the entire Bible. They must
then redefine their definition because not every-
thing in the Bible is literal.
This redefinition displays the inadequacy of the
word. It is the wrong tool for explaining a general
method of interpretation. It misleads rather than
clarifies a given text. When a word will not submit
to a dictionary definition, when a word must be
qualified and explained when it is used, then that
word does not communicate meaning but has
become a symbol, a flag proclaiming allegiance, a
means for idennfying compatriots and excluding
foreigners.
In the final paragraph on an essay entitled
"Before We Can Communicate," C.S. Lewis says:
What we need to be particularly on our guard
against are precisely the vogue-words, the incanta-
tory words, of out own circle. : .. These are, of all
expressions, the least likely to be intelligible to
anyoue divided from you by a school of thought, by
a decade, or by a social class. They are like a
family language, or a school slang. And our
. private language may delude ourselves as well as
mystifying outsiders. Enchanted words seem so
full of meaning, so illuminating. But we may be
deceived. What we derive from them may some-
times be not so much a clear conception as a
heart-warming sense of being at home and among
our own sort. 'We understand one another' often
means 'We are in sympathy.' Sympathy is a good
thing. It may even be in some ways a better thing
than intellectual understanding. BUI not the same
thing. (God in the Dock, p. 257.)
/" Interpreting 'Literal'
PrinCiples of interpretation should provide
guidance in understanding passages of Scripture.
They should help us determine the correct meaning
of specific words or passages under consideration.
There are several important hermeneutic principles
that enable us to derive the correct meaning of
Scripture: consider the context, Scripture cannot
contradict Scripture, and latter passages help
explain earlier ones.
August/September, 2000 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 25
A statement that says "take everything liter-
ally" unless it does not make sense to do so is not
helpfuL How does an appeal to literalism lead to a
"correct" interpretation, for instance, of the words
"shortly" and "at hand" in Rev. 1:1-3? Preterists
take the words literally, but premillennialists take
them spiritually. Or again, how does it help with '
the thousand years in Revelation 20? Amillennial-
ists and postrnillennialists take that spiritually and
premillennialists take it literally:
What help does "literalism" provide when a
single passage involves both literalism and ,a figure
of speech? In Acts 2, Peter explains as he
preaches on the day of Pentecost, "This is what
was spoken by the. prophet Joel: In the last days,
God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people ..
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to
blood before the coming of the great and glorious
day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the
name of the Lord willpe saved" (16-21). Some
interpreters take Peter literally-Pentecost fulfilled
Joel's prophecy. Joel's prophecy was a figure of
speech-hyperbole. Others take Joel literally, and
Peter therefore used Joel 'metaphorically to illus-
trate the similarity of the cutrent situation to what
would someday happen. We can discuss which is
more likely to be literal and which is more likely to
be figurative. Literalism is not the issue. The
question is which is literal, and why.
Martin Luther provides a classic of ,
interpreting the Bible literally. Philip Schaff says
of Luther, "He dwells at lel)gth on the meaDing of
the words o{institution: 'This is my body.' They
must be taken literally, unless the contrary can be
proved. Every departure from the literal sense is a
device of Satan, by which, in his pride and malice,
he would rob man of respect for God's Word and
of the benefit of the sacrament" (Church History,
VII, 624). As a result of his position,Luther
would not even shake hands with the Swiss
reformer Zwingli. He said, "Your spirit is different
from ours," implying thatZwingliand those who
hold to a spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper are not true Christians (p. 644). If literal-
ism is a valid hermeneutical principle, why do most
Protestants disagree with Luther's literal interpre-
tation?
In the area of eschatology, those who hold to
the various interpretations take some passages
literally that others interpret in a 'spiritual fashion,
and visa versa. Amillennialists and postrriillennial- ,
ists generally take Old Testament prophecies about
a future kingdom as a spiritual reference to the
church. But on the other hand, amillennialists and
postmillennialists take more of the passages in
Daniel literally than do premillennialists. Daniel
explained to Nebuchadnezzar that the statue of
which he dreamed represented his and succeeding
kingdoms. These kingdoms would one day be
destroyed by a stone (;ut out without hands that
, woulil, grow into a great kingdom that would
endure' forever. Specifically, it says that the stone '
"broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and
the gold to pieces" (2:45), not just the last king-
dom. The currently popular interpretation that
God's Kingdom is still future takes this passage
contrary to the plain, normal, natural, and we could
say 'literal,' meaning of the words. In chapter
seven, Daniel tells of the Son of Man ascending in
the clouds into the throne rooin of God and there
receiving the kingdom (7: 13-14). Again'it is the
amillennialists and postrnillennialists that take these
words in their plain, natural, normal, 'literal'
meaning. Christ received the kingdom and began
His reign at the ascension. Once more, Daniel
chapter nine tells of seventy weeks . . Arnillennial-
ists and postinillennialists take these words ill their
. plain, normal, natural, 'literal' meaning. Week two
follows immediately after week one, week three
follows imm:ediately after week two, week
follows There
is certainly no necessity, nOT can other interpreters
provide any hermeneutical reason for interpreting
this passage outside of the normal manner in which
words are used.
Does a so-called "principle" ofjiteralism'
provide any assistance in these cases? Actually,
no. Even worse, a principle of literalism does not .
and cannot explain when it applies and when it ,
does not. Can any of these examples be taken
literally? Yes, although by different interpreters.
The issue is not literalism. The solution lies else-
where.
Using 'Literal'
How do people learn to differentiate between
. literal and figurative speech? They do so by
paying attention to the speech of others. We laugh
at young as they learn to communicate.
We told our son to keep his eye on his drink as he
carried it. He promptly planted his face against his
26 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon -'August/September, 2000
glass. Toqdlets cannot tell or participate in jokes
nntil they gain a command over language, and
primadly over ~ figurative, non-hteral \lse of
language. We do not teach children to take
everything literally, notin speech, not in their
reading. In fact, ihe best literature is generally
that which contains the clearest illustrations and
the most effective figures of speech.
The only way, however, to learn to use lan-
guage is by using it. Some figures of speech, of
course, are readily apparent. They are like ripe
apples easily picked from the tree. Other figures
of speech are like mushrooms; it takes experience
and skill to know which are edible and which will
kill you. Taking things literally when they are
meant figuratively or spiritually is to show our-
selves untrained in the Scripture. It is to be like
the disciples discussing their lack of bread when
Jesus used 'leaven' to describe the hypocritical
teaching of the Pharisees (Matt. 16: 12). Their
literalism caused them to misunderstand the Lord.
To this the Lord responded, "You of little faith ...
How is it you' don't understand .... " Their literal
interpretation of a figure of speech was a failure
of faith and understanding.
Everyone wishes it were always obvious when
a word, phrase, or passage is a figure of speech,
but no such rule exists. There are no principles to
explain when something is literal and when it is
not. Milton Terry, writing in the nineteenth cen-
tury, said,
It is scarcely necessary, and, indeed, quite
impracticable, to lay down specific rules for
determining when language is used figuratively and
when literally. It is an old and oft-repeated herme-
neutical principle that words should be understood
in their literal sense unless such literal interpreta-
tion involves a manifest contradiction or ahsurdity.
It should be observed, however, that this principle,
when reduced to practice, becomes simply an
appeal to every man's rational judgment. And
what to one seems very absurd and improbable
may be to another altogether simple and self-
cons,istent. Some expositors have claimed to see
necessity for departing from the literal sense
where others saw none, and it seems impossible to
establish any fixed rule that will govern in all
cases. (Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 247).
Theology, Not Hermeneutics,
Determines Eschatology
iitenilism, as a hermeneutical principle mis-
leads the people of God. All conservatives sub-
scribe to the one Standard of hermeneutics that
came out of the Reformation-the grammaticall
historical approach to Scripture. The Reformers
rescued God's Word from allegorical and scholas-
, tic interpretations, and brought the Word and
common sense back to the people. Conservatives
do not divide over their adherence to the Scripture
or the method of understanding it. What the Bible
plainly teaches, all Christians willingly accept.
To the discomfort of many, some doctrines do
not come directly from our exegesis of any given
text of Scripture. Neither hermeneutical prin-
ciples, knowledge of the original languages, or
extensive study of the Word, enable expositors to
answer every question with ease and preciSion.
Issues like infant baptism, the number of cov-
enants, the number of dispensations, the role of
Israel today, come more from our theology. We
use hermeneutical principles and rigorous exege-
sis. OUf specific conclusions reflect our overall
understanding of Scripture, theology. Adherents of
these positions believe fervently that their position
comes clearly from the Scriptures. Each camp
presents its evidence to tlle other camp, thereby
attempting to demonstrate that it is more faithful in
its exposition of Scripture. The very fact that each
side makes this effort declares our common
hermeneutics. Each side fails to convince all its
detractors, however, because the final determina-
tion often lies in other doctrines, not the ones being
discussed.
In eSChatology, for example, neither hermeneu-
tics nor literalism provides the primary differences
in our understanding. Each camp has the same
regard for God's Word. Each camp bases its
belief on their understanding of what the Bible
teaches and would readily change position if
convinced the Bible taught something different.
Each side interprets numerous eschatological
passages in a literal sense. And each side takes
other verses spiritually. How do the camps deter-
mine which to take literally and which to take
spiritually? An appeal to a prinCiple of literalism
does nol help. No one takes literally all the verses
that can be literal. That would be impossible.
Revelation, for instance, cannot be both a proph-
ecy about things "at hand" and a description of
events that will transpire over a thousand years. If
Olle passage is literal, the other cannot be. The
issue is not literalism; it is theology.
August/September, 2000 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 27
For example, covenant tireoiogians, iwho see the
relationship an,d the Church as ,one
of continuity, i.e. , promise and fulfillment, reject
the resumption of bl(i)od sacrifices in ,a repuilt
temple., , Those wbo see in the Bible a great " ,
distinction in planfr01D the, Old to the N,ew,
Testament, will tab; verses ' as figures of speeeh
that seem to imply fulfillm,ent in the present
Church Infant versus believer's baptism
follows the, same pattern. If the Church is spiritual
Israel, then infant baptism the covenant
sign of circumcision. If the Cbnrch, replaces Israel
in the New Testaip.ent era" Fhen baptism is a 'rite of
initiat,iQn, appropriate only for those who profess
faith in Christ.
All Christians are i!lterpreting the same pas-
sages, but they cqme, to different conclusiOns, "
because of their, theological understanding of the
Bible. Each believer must examine the Scripture
to determine which theological position seems most
consistent with its teaching. We understand
individual verses by their place in the whole
context of the Bible, and we understand the whole
context by examining individual verses. We work
from both directions at the same time. We use
both induction and deduction just as we do with all
other areas of study.
Popularity Is No Guide
There are, of course, some doctrines about
which there can be no dispute among orthOdox
Christians: e.g., the nature of God, the Person and
work of Christ, the authority of Scripture. These
doctrines, though we now take them for granted,
were defined and made the common confession of
the people of God after difficult exegetical labor,
rigorous debate, and personal sacrifice. Today, we
easily pull together Scriptural support for the two-
fold nature of Christ, but the Church wrestled with
that issue for hundreds of years, And the truth did
not always dominate. The popular position is not
always correct. This means that after the basic
doctrines, it will take effortto derive further truth
from Scripture. It takes diligence to correctly
handle the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). However,
when Paul describes the source and value of
Scripture, doctrine comes before instruction in
righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). There is no excu'se.
We mUst make the effort to master the content of
God' s Word.
;;""' i' .ConclUstclil , "
\vorlls ,
; " . " " '< : _: " c. " ' L r -' , ", :" " :;.;,( .. ,, : , _ '_ ; " ,
ej'feciivcl.'y w9l ds and p)lri.!$es : ;'.:
oiiilasf tli6fr llsflfulnesi . 'That is:6)i6,re,i son f6rtl)e:
,I.,.. " , ' ' : :: ....,', . ,1_ , " .. ' .. ', ' " i , ', ', .. , ':':.''': '., -.,::''':: .,: .' . : " d :' .
ntinl.eroiisnew "TMiKiJIg Jatlies , '
does
_.,,: -.. :;', ', .. .. ' , , \' , ", - ":. ':', ,, ' i' " ,-: .' - " ,f ' , ": , i> ." " ".'" , ,," '.'.
today_ Words b.ave chaugedmeaniIigs 'over t)j.e ,
yeats, al1dothc!Shave fallen outpf use entirely. .
,"Literalism" falls ii1tothesame eategoiy. Ii d'oes
not simply indicate a'grammatical/historical ap-
proach t<: Scripture; instead, it has beco\n,e what
Lewis called an "enchanied" word communicating
feeling but not J71eaning. It is not a valid herme-
neutical principle, It 110 Iluidelines for
which words o(verses are literal and which
figurative. It serves only to provide justification
for being dogmatic on the interpretation of a verse
when others disagree, as Luther was against all .
'" ". I I: ' " .'. ,
the otherRerormers, or as premillennialists are 011
their favorite Both Luther and premillenni-
alists take numerous other verses figuratively, but
they do provide a uniform approach for applying
the literal pril1ciple. To those outside the PreJjlil-
lennial camp, it appears that they apply literalism
arbitrarily. Actual)y, they use another gUideline.
Their theology determines their exegesis, not their
literalism.
All Christians take the Word of
God in its plain, natural, normal sense. When it
speaks of history or other things of a factual
nature, we all take those words literally. When the
Bible uses figures of speech, we all take those
words in the manner they are intended to be
understood - non-literally. 'When we are not sure
whether it is a figure of speech or a literal state-
ment, we will debate the issue based on legitimate
hermeneutical principles, our theological persua-
sion, our best reasoning, and our conscience.
Christians will not always agree. The New
Testament Christians did nof always agree. But
we can seek to understand each other, communi-
cate with meaningful words, respect the differ-
ences we honestly derive from God's Word, and
endeavor to arrive at a unified understanding of
God's inspired and infallible Word.
28 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - August/September, 2000