# Literal vs. Spiritual Interpretation



## Knoxienne (Apr 19, 2009)

What is a good hermeneutical rule for when to take passages literally and when to take them non-literally? 

Would this fall under the "interpret unclear passages in light of the clear"?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 19, 2009)

When they agree with your preconceived notions, they are to be taken literally. When they appear to disagree with your theology, then they are obviously figurative of one kind or another. 

All of the major hermeneutic texts discuss this issue and it impinges upon our thinking at so many points. Creation - framework vs. "staight forward" views; typology - how far to press for finding types; parables of Christ; the current dispute over gender and male vs. female roles. I am aware of several rules of thumb, but none of them without their own problems. Sproul likes to say that one should interpret a text as literally as it is possible to do within the constraints of genre, literary devices, and common sense. Dispensationalists like to boast that they are the consistently "literal" ones in the use of their hermeneutic as opposed to the spiritualizing of the covenant thinkers. This points to the problem: one cannot interpret ANYTHING without some set of presuppositions, preunderstandings, and principles.


----------



## DTK (Apr 19, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> What is a good hermeneutical rule for when to take passages literally and when to take them non-literally?
> 
> Would this fall under the "interpret unclear passages in light of the clear"?


I think I understand what you're asking, and I have wrestled with it to some degree. May I add this to the difficulty or the easing of it? I'm not sure that the "literal vs spiritual" meaning is always helpful. In other words, that particular hermeneutical paradigm can often draw a contrast where there ought to be none. For instance, are spiritual realities less than literal realities? In many ways, the spiritual reality that looks beyond a present reality is often more literal, and I think that this is often something that dispensationalists miss.

Take for instance, 2 Cor 4:16-5:7



> 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.
> 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,
> 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
> 
> ...



Paul speaks of two sets of things, a set of things "seen" and a set of things "unseen." (2 Cor. 4:18). The visible set of things that we can see and touch and feel are _temporary_; while the invisible set of things "unseen" that we cannot see and touch and feel are made of the very substance of "eternity." Which set of things is more real or more substantial, those things that are temporary and are passing away, or those things that are eternal and never pass away?

From this perspective (and I think this is biblical, not platonic) those things that are more real and more substantial are those things which are unseen and eternal. But dispensationalists do not seem to want to grant that spiritual things are more real and more substantial, and so often understand them (i.e., spiritual realities) as less than literal realities. In this sense, I don't think a "spiritual vs. literal" paradigm is all that helpful. At the same time, I must remain open to correction from my brethren.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 19, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> When they agree with your preconceived notions, they are to be taken literally. When they appear to disagree with your theology, then they are obviously figurative of one kind or another.



COOL!!!


----------



## MW (Apr 19, 2009)

The first rule is to distinguish between the meaning of the words and the ultimate referent. E.g., I am the vine. It requires a literal understanding on the verbal level, and without that meaning the words make no sense. At the same time it is not a literal vine that is the ultimate referent, but a Person, and therefore it is to be understood as employing a metaphor.


----------



## Rangerus (Apr 19, 2009)

I got jumped this evening at the cookie social, by a guy in our church who insisted he force his literal dispensational based eschatology beliefs on me. He just kept insisting I have and opinion on it and couldn't understand how I could read the Bible and not have an opinion on the end times. (I do, but it is different than his) I finally told him I really just wanted to have a couple of cookies and enjoy a chat with a few friends, not articulate and debate whether The Revelation was literal or spiritual. Needless to say my evening was ruined.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 19, 2009)

Even the figurative and parabolic portions of scripture have a literal meaning.
We must let scripture interpret scripture as much as is possible. 
Most of the types and figures used in scripture have a consistent use if properly searched out.
Benjamin Keach on Preaching from the Types and Metaphors in the Bible is very helpful to sort out many different uses .


----------

