There is no such thing as a literalist

When it comes to Bible interpretation … there is no such thing as a ‘literalist'!

This is a curious notion really, and many fail to give 'biblical literalism' any serious reflection. This is especially true in light of the question I hear frequently from my unbelieving friends: “You don’t interpret the Bible literally do you?” My answer is usually, "It all depends on context." 

So as not to appear to let my theological predisposition taint the discussion, (as if to assume that Amillennialists might have a better grasp on the definition than Dispensationalists), here is a quote defining literal interpretation from J. Dwight Pentecost, a solid Dispensational Premillennialist, from Dallas Theological Seminary, from his book, Things to Come: 'A Study in Biblical Eschatology':

“The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.”

This concern for interpreting the Bible literally is not just an issue that comes up between unbelievers and believers. First, let's think about what it means to say that we want to "give each word the same basic meaning it would normally have" in interpretation, and then I’ll examine more closely other problem areas that occur in our literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The Problem with Interpreting the Word All Literally

It shouldn't be surprising that this issue of literal interpretation finds its way into the heart of the ongoing interpretative debate between Calvinists and Arminians, as depicted in this comment:

"The Calvinistic effort to limit this word [all] to “all the elect” constitutes one of the saddest chapters in exegesis. The Scriptures shine with the “all” of universality, but Calvinists do not see it. Their one effort is to find something that would justify them to reduce “all” to “some.” Calvin himself says that all = all kinds, all classes, rich and poor, high and low, rejecting no class, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual." [R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minnesota: Augsbury Publishing House, 1963), 1029].

No wonder there are so many issues with interpretation! Christians can’t even agree what the words all and many mean. If we say we want to interpret these words consistently or normally or ordinarily, and not contextually, in order to get at the literal sense, we run into all kinds of trouble. 

Looking closely at the use of these two words in just two verses of Romans chapter 5, we find that Paul used each of the terms all and many to mean both ‘each and every individual’, and ‘some individuals,’ depending entirely upon the contextual usage and not by interpreting it normally, ordinarily, consistently or literally.

^{NKJ Romans 5:18-19 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men [every existing individual], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men [all who believe], resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many [every existing individual] were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many [all who believe] will be made righteous."}

Clearly, Lenski's comment that Calvinists fail to interpret the word all in its ordinary, consistent and normal use is surprising. Would he suggest that Christ's obedience made every individual person righteous before God, even the unbeliever?

What is the Literal Interpretation of Prophesy?

This problem of interpretation also exists between Amillennialists and Dispensationalists.

Almost all of the problems associated with the different views of the book of Revelation are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation. And using words like normal and plain as the basis for our understanding any text of Scripture depends entirely on context, and not just the immediate context of the verse. When we interpret any passage anywhere in the Bible, we need to consider the sense that the entirety of Scripture gives a passage, in order to get the meaning in each case, including:

The particular words being used; the verse the words appear in; the paragraph the verse is in; the chapter the paragraph is in; the book the chapter is in; the Testament the book is in; and the entirety of Scripture.

Even more importantly, however, is that no matter how plain or how literal we think we are in our interpretation, if we do not arrive at what the author intended to say, no degree of plainness or literalness will help us arrive at a correct interpretation.

What the author (being moved by the Spirit) meant the verse to mean in the immediate and full context in which it appears, is what the passage literally means, regardless of whether or not we interpret it in a literal or figurative sense. And we must concede up front, that the author had one specific intended meaning when he wrote, whether or not we think we have the literal or plain meaning or not.

Naturally, there are certain liabilities to using the words literal and plain to describe how we understand certain Scriptures. Claiming to adhere to a literal translation in all cases of prophesy, for example, as most every Dispensationalist is prone to do, would make for some wrong interpretations, would it not? 

Take Daniel 9:26 for example:

“...And the people of the prince who is to come

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood.”

First, we need to be sure about which period of time this occurs in: is this prophesy referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (as most commentators agree that it was)? If so, did Daniel not rather speak spiritually or figuratively here by using the word 'flood' and mean that the city would be flooded with the soldiers of Titus? Wouldn’t interpreting the passage literally and in the normal and plain use of the word 'flood' make that prophesy untrue?

What about the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants would possess the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18)? Some Dispensationalists suggest that this prophesy has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled at some time in the future.

^{NKJ Genesis 15:18-21 "On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."}

According to my reading of the Bible, this promise was fulfilled under the leadership of Joshua 600 years after the promise was given to Abraham! Read Joshua 11:23. Every major version of Scripture says "whole land." Deuteronomy 1:8 says that "you are to go in and possess the land which Jehovah swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them." 

    Read Joshua 21:43-45. All versions are similarly interpreted: “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel.” Those verses seem to me to sum up that the promises of the land have been fulfilled.    

What is the Literal Interpretation of the Everlastingness of God’s Promises?

Understanding the everlastingness of God's promises presents us with another example of the difficulty of interpreting passages literally: What are we to make of the aspect of  'everlastingness' in the promises that God made? In what sense is  there an obligation on God's part to fulfill what were clearly 'everlasting' promises?  Does our fascination with literalness bind us to making God have to deal with Israel in a particular way in the distant future because God still needs to keep His 'everlasting' promises to Israel?

Can an Old Testament promise be said to be eternal, yet cease to be in effect? Apparently so. The Old Testament use of the word "eternal" must be interpreted according to the radius of time being dealt with. For instance, each example listed below was instituted and pronounced by God Himself to be an 'eternal' promise given to Israel. I've given you the verses so you can read for yourself that these are eternal promises:

Sabbath- Exodus 31:13-16; Ezekiel 20:12ff

Circumcision- Genesis 17:11-13

Priesthood- Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13

Perpetuity of Solomon's house- 2 Chronicles 7:16

There are a couple of preliminary issues to keep in the back of our minds as we proceed here: One is whether the word eternal means something like 'completed in the distant-and-as-yet-unknown-future' only? Another is, does the word eternal mean 'without ceasing from the moment I give the promise until time ceases'? Or can eternal mean 'until the fulfillment of the promise from God's perspectives over',  regardless of whether or not human beings think that that fulfillment has taken place?

I would suggest the following ways to pursue evaluating these difficulties:

(1) Though the Sabbath was an eternal promise given to the people of Israel, they repeatedly profaned it. For those who would suggest that the giving of and the  keeping of the Sabbath are meant to be observed by Israel perpetually, Calvin suggested that Sabbath keeping was never intended by God to be perfected in Israel's practice of keeping one day set aside to observe God's rest. 

"The Sabbath would never be perfected until the Last Day should come.  For we here begin our blessed rest in Him … it will not be consummated until … God shall be 'all in all' [1 Corinthians 15:28]...  It would seem that the Lord [was trying to] make them aspire to this perfection by unceasing meditation upon the Sabbath throughout life ...  There is no doubt that the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished …  [Sabbath keeping] is not confined within a single day but [is intended to] extend through the whole course of our life … Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days" [2.8.30-31].

(2) Circumcision, according to Calvin, was likewise intended to be fulfilled in Christ, and not to be understood as an eternal promise to all nations.

"… [circumcision] was a token and a reminder to confirm [to Israel] the promise given to Abraham of the blessed seed in which all nations of the earth were to be blessed [Genesis 22:18]… Now, that saving seed (as we are taught by Paul) was Christ [Galatians 3:16], in whom alone they trusted … circumcision was the same thing to them as in Paul's teaching it was to Abraham, namely, a sign of the righteousness of faith" [Romans 4:11] [4.14.21].

(3) An eternal priestly promise was in effect only as long as the Levitical priesthood existed for the time God intended it to remain in use. The high priest was

"… a mediator between God and men, to make satisfaction to God by the shedding of blood and by the offering of a sacrifice that would suffice for the forgiveness of sins. This high priest was Christ [Hebrews 4:14; 5;5; 9:11]; he poured out his own blood; he himself was the sacrificial victim; he offered himself, obedient unto death, to the father" [Philippians 2:8]. Institutes [4.14.22].

In addition to this, we have the New Testament declaration that we Christians who have come to Christ are considered to be a 'holy priesthood … through Jesus Christ' [1 Peter 2:5]. The function of High Priest was not intended to be an eternal promise.

(4) 2 Chronicles 7:16 says God promised to live in Solomon's house forever. Yet that house was destroyed and does not exist today. Did the God of eternal promises break His promise? Or did "forever" mean not 'from the time I instituted the promise till the end of time," but "for as long as the house stood"? 

Or should the literal interpretation of these promises be to interpret them according to the radius of time in which they were issued and intended?

Promise with reference to the temple was binding upon God until the very second the temple ceased to exist; an eternal promise under the old covenant was in effect only during the life of that old covenant. To say the least, theological pandemonium has blossomed out of the attempt to make promises made under the law binding upon God long after the initial intent of the promise has served its purpose in God's program.

A legal eternal promise was in effect only as long as the ceremonial and civil law was in effect; an eternal promise to national Israel was in effect only as long as God dealt with Israel as a nation (and here there is quite a discrepancy, as the dispensationalist says God is still waiting to finish dealing with Israel, and the Amillennialist says that there is no distinction between true Israel and the church; but again, it is a matter of one's hermeneutic).

Conclusion

The objective in Biblical interpretation should be to determine what the author intended the passage to mean when he wrote it. That is our only objective. We are  not trying to determine whether a passage should be understood literally or symbolically, and sometimes we don't really know which the author intended. 

One blog I read tried to establish this type of methodology: "Does it possess a degree of absurdity when taken literally? Example: Isaiah 55:12 “the trees of the fields will clap their hands.” Did this author really think that there were people reading that text that thought, "Wow, these must have been very special trees to actually have hands."

Scripture frequently uses language metaphorically. Here is an excellent example of the use of striking metaphor: "For if God  … cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment ..." [2 Peter 2:4]. Clearly, the author didn't mean actual chains of darkness. 

This same blogger wrote, "a symbolic view of 1000 years does not possess a degree of clarity," yet they fail to see the humor in this comment! If the author of the Scripture was concerned that that particular symbolism led to a lack of clarity, and his one focus was to be clear in the passage, wouldn't he have chosen some other form of expression so to avoid the confusion? 

Furthermore, who is confused? The author or the reader? Again, we are to determine not whether or not the author was clear in his language by our subjective considerations, but rather, we are attempting to fathom, using the language that he used, what he meant! This is especially true in light of the fact that he could have used other language if he thought lack of clarity would be a problem. 

Perhaps the writer used '1000 years' with the intention of being purposefully unclear, meaning something like "a heck of a long time." Then again, maybe he meant exactly 1000 years to the day, and not 1000 years and 1 day! Sometimes we don't know exactly what he meant.

Dealing with a formidable God scoffer

Tim Keller, in a sermon I listened to recently, said, "If you want to increase traffic to your Internet blog, the best way to do it is to show your Internet audience that you are a rank scoffer and a mocker of God." I know now one reason why there hasn't been much traffic to my blog; I'm no God-scoffer. 

To be a formidable God-scoffer on the Internet there are a few rules to follow:

1) You must demonstrate your superiority as a scoffer through offering your audience dogmatic anti-God views and a closed mind on anything regarding serious study or comprehension of the Christian religion. 

2) You never admit any doubt about any of your views on God; in fact, while you are openly encouraged to doubt the validity of moral absolute truth, you must never, never doubt your absolute conviction that there absolutely is no God.

3) In the face of rational and thoughtful arguments against your view, you must always respond to their arguments with the aim to ultimately disrespect your religious opponents; always belittling their religious views, always mocking, always disdaining any notion of the reality of God.

Scoffers have not come into existence because of the Internet. God-mockers indeed have had centuries to perfect their point of view and supposed justification for rebellion against God. Wisdom literature in the Bible is replete with descriptions of the mocker. In fact, there are categories of adjectives dedicated to this kind of individual in Scripture.  

Here are just a few adjectives that are used: scornful, presumptuous, intellectually arrogant, haughty, insolent, close-minded. Furthermore, scoffers always seem willing to overstep the boundaries of social interaction; in Scripture their pride is described as boundless; boiling up inside them to the point of overflowing, as in Psalm 73:5-9 (NRSV):

They are not in trouble as others are; 

they are not plagued like other people. 

⁶ Therefore pride is their necklace; 

violence covers them like a garment. 

⁷ Their eyes swell out with fatness; 

their hearts overflow with follies. 

⁸ They scoff and speak with malice; 

loftily they threaten oppression. 

⁹ They set their mouths against heaven, 

and their tongues range over the earth. 

Some of you may recall that there was a prolific volume of verbal persecution/backlash that flooded the blogosphere in defense of homosexuality after an April 30, 2012 event at the National High School Journalism convention. 

The stated purpose of this gathering was to bring awareness of the problem of bullying in high schools to high school students. What ensued during the program was an opportunity for Dan Savage, an outspoken homosexual, in the middle of his discussion on bullying at high school, to turn his speech against bullying into a powerful, outspoken bully-rage where he demonstrated his skill at taunting, jeering and cursing Christianity and his clear repudiating statements against homosexuality. 

Dan's favorite answer to the question of "Why must homosexuality be right?" is "because the Bible says it's wrong." You can watch a 3 minute clip on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzrxhzHxBlU (Content Warning!!).

Interestingly, Scripture suggests that, of all the Old Testament categories allocated to scoffers like Dan Savage, the intellectually arrogant, sarcastic mocker is the fool with the least hope. And the reason he has the least hope is because this type of mocker is essentially a doctrinal Pharisee who's arguments sound like this: "Here's how I know I'm right about everything; I'm right."

Two different kinds of God-haters

There is an important distinction to be made regarding scoffers; there are different kinds of God-haters. There are those who deny the very existence of God, as in Psalm 14:1; 53:1 = "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." 

The persons who are referred to in Psalm 2 are not your practical atheists. The verbs used to describe them here in Psalm 2 include: they conspire, they plot, and they set themselves against and take counsel against the Lord and His anointed. 

"Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying, ³ “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” (NRSV).

These are technically misotheists. Strictly speaking, the term misotheism (Gr. miso -- hate; theos -- God) maintains a negative attitude towards God without making a statement about His existence or nature. This is an important distinction. 

Bernard Schweizer is an associate professor of English at Long Island University in Brooklyn. He specializes in the study of controversial public intellectual iconoclasts (those rebels who attack cherished societal beliefs). His third book is entitled Hating God. In that book he makes a distinction between the two groups of people who hate God: Those who hate God as an idea, but don't recognize his existence in reality; and those who truly believe in God’s existence, and yet hate and scorn his character in their state of religious rebellion.

Atheistic, non-believers may say contemptuous things about God, but when they do so, they are simply giving the thumbs-down to what they conceive is a fictional villainous character, whom they deem to be a figment of society's imagination.  Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins highlight this group. (Interestingly, and ironically enough, this type spend a considerable amount of energy enumerating the flaws of this fictional character; which leads one to have a deeper appreciation for G. K. Chesterton's comment, "if there were no God, there would be no atheists." Think about it).

The second group is the group described in Psalm 2, and made up of people like Dan Savage. Schweitzer says these are "brave, visionary, intelligent people who reject God from a sense of [their own] moral outrage. The reason they reject God is because of the amount of injustice and suffering that they witness in this world."  

But what they reject is not God himself; they reject rather the commandments and laws of God that keep them from a freedom to do as they please. 

Schweitzer says that this rejection of God's laws and commandments, without rejecting God, in its various manifestations, "is a dark, disturbing and perplexing strand of religious dissent. But at the same time, it is an attitude toward the divine that shows just how compelling belief can be."

Misotheists then are those who believe in God but engage in a lifelong struggle with his apparent indifference to the world he has created. They wrestle with the character of God. Modern day misotheists include such literary lights as Friedrich Nietzsche, Mark Twain, John Milton, Emily Dickenson, Robert Frost, and others. These are men and women who do not question God's existence, but deny that He is merciful, competent, or good.

These people, according to Schweitzer, "make a negative leap of faith, trusting their own judgment, and placing their sense of moral outrage above the fear of God." They classify Him as malicious. The reason they reject God is because of the amount of injustice, natural catastrophe and suffering that they witness in this world." But what they reject is neither the idea of God, nor God himself; they reject the way God rules from a sense of [their own] moral outrage. They value their own judgment about what is right and wrong over God’s judgment about what is right or wrong.

"Simply put, … Misotheists did not profess atheism in reaction to their sobering understanding of the universe. Instead, their anger at the unabated reign of sickness, poverty, crime, famine, corruption, and war in many parts of God’s own world prompted them to want to shake their fist at the Almighty. Hence, fundamentally the impulse to denounce God is born from [their] intrinsic moral imperative."

Numbers 15:30-31 "'But the person (soul) who acts defiantly (acts with a high hand), whether native-born or a resident foreigner, insults (blasphemes, reviles) the LORD. That person (soul) must be cut off (excommunicated or killed) from among his people.  Why?  Because he has despised (treated as worthless, treated with contempt, looked down his nose at) the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment (nullified, violated, broken His word and commandment); that person (soul) must be completely cut off. His iniquity will be on him.'"  

The implication of the expression is that it was done in full knowledge of the Law (especially since this contrasts the person whose fist is high with the sins of ignorance in Numbers 15:22-29). This is a reference to the blatant defiance of the word of the LORD. 

The misotheist never quite understands that he is in rebellion to God as much as any unbelieving atheist. His pride, arrogance and complete lack of humility and willingness to submit to the sovereignty of God and His Messiah are at the heart of his hatred.

In his commentary on Job, Calvin really pinpointed the misotheist’s issue: "The principle enemy we must contend against is … our rebelliousness to God's decrees.  Even though we find it strange and contrary to all reason and equity, we must nevertheless bow our heads and say, "Lord, however deep are the abysses of your judgments, we do not presume to reject them. We must say, Lord we are in your hand, it is not for us to impose a law on you, to summon you now, to tell you to do this or that.  Above all we must not complain; to 'murmur' against the Lord is the first symptom of rebellion. It is a good beginning when a man can subject himself in all humility and reverence to God and renounce himself, when your Creator prevails over you and has entire mastery over you.” 

"If people continue to believe in a God whose laws and commandments they find to be contemptible, then this is a testament to the power of belief, albeit, a twisted, unconventional form that is so perplexing as to strain our common understanding of faith to the breaking point."