Literal Interpretation, So-called
Examining the Dispensational claim of
literal interpretation of Bible prophecy
November 17b, 2015
Copyright © 2014 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.
| Table of Contents |
|---|
|
A. Introduction B. The word "literal" C. A two dimensional matrix D. Sample passages E. Conclusion |
A. Introduction
Hermeneutics is the set of rules or principles used in the interpretation of the Bible. It is often stated that one's hermeneutics will determine one's view of biblical prophecy and future events (eschatology). For example, Pentecost begins his 64 page discussion of hermeneutics in eschatology with:
No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A study in Biblical Eschatology, Dunham, 1964, p. 1)
What should we make of the claim of the Dispensational school of eschatology that their view of future events must be correct because they are the only ones using proper hermeneutics?
The hermeneutical principle that is most often extolled is – consistent literal interpretation. But the idea of literal interpretation means different things to different people. In addition, literal interpretation is only one of many important hermeneutical principles. Unfortunately, some interpreters emphasize consistent literal interpretation, but at the same time ignore a passage's context! In such a case the mantra "we believe in literal interpretation" becomes not just empty, but misleading.
In this paper we focus on biblical statements about the end times and the nature of the kingdom. We examine the misapplication of the literal principle and then look at several passages in which a so-called literal interpretation is far off the mark.
B. The word "literal"
One source of confusion is the word literal, itself. On the one hand, the word "literal" is often used to describe the method of expression and the method of interpretation, as when a person says, "This passage is written in plain, literal language" or "I use a literal hermeneutic when I interpret this passage." On the other hand, "literal" is also often used to describe the nature of the subject, as when a person says, "I believe in a literal kingdom," that is, a real kingdom that is physical and earthly.
Consider two people – Interpreter One and Interpreter Two. Interpreter One adopts a literal approach to interpretation. (When we speak of literal interpretation we are including everything that goes along with good literal interpretation, including examining the grammar, the historical and cultural background, the context, the intent of the author and the understanding of the original readers, etc.) By adopting this literal approach, this first interpreter is ready to hear what the passage says. He will let the passage speak for itself. This process is called exegesis, which means that he gets the meaning out of the passage. This, of course, is the proper procedure; it opens up the Bible.
Interpreter Two adopts an entirely different approach, but his description of his approach sounds similar because he says "I interpret passages literally." What he does, however, is just the opposite of Interpreter One. Interpreter Two already believes that the passage is describing something that is real (something that is tangible and physical), so he refers to his interpretation as literal. He has not let the passage speak for itself, he has brought a pre-determined idea to the passage. This process is called eisegesis, which means that he reads his own meaning into the passage. This, of course, is the wrong procedure; it closes the Bible. Confusion is created because the word "literal" is used by both interpreters.
We might expect to find this sort of confusion among those who have never formally examined language and interpretation. So we are surprised to find the following statement in Walvoord's explanation of the difference between the hermeneutics used by amillennialists and premillennialists.
Amillenarians, while admitting the need for literal interpretation of Scripture in general, have held from Augustine to the present time that prophecy is a special case requiring spiritualizing or nonliteral interpretation. Premillenarians hold, on the contrary, that the literal method applies to prophecy as well as other doctrinal areas, and therefore contend for a literal millennium. (John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Dunham, 1957, p. 56, italics added)
A great deal of confusion is created by the fact that the word "literal" is used to apply to both of these two different aspects: first, the method of interpretation (which, of course, should match the method of expression), and second, the nature of the subject at hand. One should never think that the literal method of interpretation automatically leads to a literal subject, such as a "literal Millennium." It may, but only if the passage being interpreted says that the subject is physical.
C. A two dimensional matrix
There is a lot of confusion regarding so-called literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. For example, some people think that, if you interpret a passage literally, the normal conclusion is that the passage is talking about something physical. But something that is physical can be described both literally and figuratively. And something that is spiritual can also be described both literally and figuratively.
Literalness of the expression (how it is said) is entirely disconnected from the nature of the subject (what is said). Proper interpretation never confuses these two aspects. One aspect involves determining the literalness of the passage. (Of course, this idea of determining the literalness of the passage can be complicated, for various parts of the passage may use different types of figures or perhaps no figures at all.) A separate aspect involves reading what the passage says in order to determine what it affirms about the nature of the subject. Thus, whether the subject has a spiritual or physical nature is determined by what the passage says, not by how it says it.
The point is this: don't confuse method and subject in such a way that you let your method determine the nature of your subject automatically.
- A literal method of interpretation does not always lead to a subject that is physical.
- A figurative method of interpretation does not always lead to a subject that is spiritual.
(We are using the word "spiritual" in a rather general sense, including everything that is not physical. Thus, for our present purposes we consider such things as thoughts, ideas, learning, emotions, hopes, fears, good, and evil as spiritual.)
The following grid shows how these two aspects (method and subject) are independent of each other.
How is it expressed and interpreted? If it is expressed literally (areas 1 and 2), interpret it literally. If it is expressed figuratively (areas 3 and 4), interpret it figuratively.
What is the nature or character of the subject? Here, of course, we are concerned with whether something like the kingdom is physical (areas 2 and 4) or spiritual (areas 1 and 3).
We cannot assume that a literal method of expression guarantees a physical subject, or that a figurative method of expression guarantees a spiritual subject.
(There is an obvious third dimension which could be added: veracity. Is the statement true or false? However, since we are dealing with biblical statements rather than philosophic or scientific statements, we consider everything that the Bible asserts true. Thus, we have made the above matrix as simple as possible by keeping it at two dimensions.)
Obviously we are oversimplifying this matter, for many things are both physical and spiritual, and many statements contain both literal and figurative elements. In addition, figures of speech vary greatly from one another, some being relatively "literal," others extremely figurative. (See Chapter 11 of the book Direct Bible Discovery, which contains 16 common types of figures of speech from the Bible, arranged from the least to the most figurative.) In spite of the oversimplification, it is crucial to remember that there is a difference between the how of the expression and the what of the subject.
IMPORTANT: We need to remember that a subject whose nature is physical can be described both literally and figuratively. Similarly, a subject whose nature is spiritual can also be described both literally and figuratively.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Example 4:
D. Sample passages
Below are several examples of the failure of so-called literal interpretation. Please note: we are not arguing against literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is good and foundational. We are arguing against claiming literal interpretation but then confusing literal method with literal subject, or violating other essential rules of hermeneutics and careful exegesis. (By the way, proper literal interpretation is better called "literary" interpretation. See Literary Interpretation, chapter 11 of the book Direct Bible Discovery.)
1. The Abrahamic covenant (conditional)
Does the future hold a place for the nation Israel? One's view of the Abrahamic covenant is an important factor in answering this question. Was the Abrahamic covenant a divine "forever promise," or was it conditional?
According to God's own explanation to Abraham, the covenant could be broken by human disobedience.
My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:13-14, italics added)
According to Deuteronomy 28 the Abrahamic covenant is conditional, with certain blessings promised only if the people are obedient.
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God… (Deuteronomy 28:1-2)
But immediately after spelling out the blessings of obedience, God says he will bring disaster if the people are not obedient.
However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country…. (Deuteronomy 28:15-16)
In addition, regarding those "forever" promises, even when conditions are not explicitly stated the conditions are still there, for
the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained …'. (1 Samuel 2:30).
Israel did fail, and God keeps his promises against them.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. (Matthew 23:37-38, italics added)
… they [the Jews] always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. (1 Thessalonians 2:16, italics added)
… they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord (Hebrews 8:9)
See the full discussion in the paper Ancient Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant.
It is certainly not good literal interpretation to select only the positive promises and neglect the negative ones. Nor is it good literal interpretation to forget that all these covenant promises are conditional whether the condition is stated or not. Such interpretation is highly selective and gives the label "literal interpretation" a bad name.
2. Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar's dream image (two types of kingdoms)
Consider Daniel 2 and Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the huge statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and iron "mixed" with clay. In this dream a rock was cut out without human hands which destroyed the statue and became a mountain filling the whole earth. A literal reading of the dream and its interpretation makes it clear that the rock destroys all four "metals" (kingdoms) at the same time.
Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. (Daniel 2:35, italics added)
The rock did not merely replace the last kingdom, but all four kingdoms.
This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands – a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. (Daniel 2:45, italics added)
This gives you an immediate clue that the rock does not displace just the fourth kingdom in the same manner that historically the fourth kingdom displaced the third, the third displaced the second, and the second displaced the first. In other words, the nature of Christ's kingdom is different than the nature of the other four kingdoms. They are temporary, earthly, physical kingdoms which successively destroy one another. But Christ's kingdom has no such limitation, for it is a lasting, world-wide, spiritual kingdom. The idea that Christ's kingdom is essentially unlike human kingdoms is also suggested by two additional facts: (1) the stone was cut out "not by human hands" (verse 34), and (2) the stone, rather than becoming another statue, becomes something entirely different – a mountain (verse 35).
Walvoord's commentary on Daniel 2 (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, 1971) does not say anything about the simultaneous destruction of all four kingdoms and its implications. Nor does he seem to assign any particular significance to the non-human source of the stone, or to its becoming a mountain. Rather, he claims (similar to his earlier quote in section B) that
the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of God, replaces completely all vestiges of the preceding kingdoms, which prophecy can only be fulfilled in any literal sense by a reign of Christ over the earth. (p. 76, italics added).
Note, however, that it is a literal reading of Daniel 2 which leads to the conclusion that, while one part of the subject is physical (the four kingdoms) the other part of the subject (Christ's kingdom) is spiritual. Of course, if a person has already concluded that Christ's kingdom is earthly and physical, he will have great difficulty seeing this obvious contrast in the passage.
3. Daniel 9, prophecy of 70 weeks (fulfilled exactly as stated, in the first century A.D.)
As Daniel was in Babylon, considering and praying about Jeremiah's prophecy of a 70 year exile, he received a vision of 70 weeks – 70 "sevens," a period of time future to Daniel but seven times as long as the Babylonian exile. Daniel was told when this period of 490 years would start, which turned out to be when Artaxerxes made a certain decree involving Jerusalem in 458 BC.
Daniel was also told the six things that would be accomplished within this 490 years (Daniel 9:24). According to numerous New Testament passages, the six things were accomplished by Christ at his first coming. Daniel was also told that in the middle of the final week, which started in AD 26, Christ would be cut off (dying for our sins) and would thus confirm the new covenant (Daniel 9:26-27). Four decades later Jerusalem is destroyed, as predicted in verses 26 and 27. For a full discussion of this very significant prophecy, see the paper Daniel 9.
Thus, when interpreted literally, the 70 week prophecy makes perfect sense and matches remarkably well with actual events and dates. Yet, some who say they favor literal interpretation break this prophecy apart and place many centuries between week 69 and week 70, making the final week still future to us. There is absolutely no hint of any such break or any such addition of centuries in the passage itself. So which interpretation deserves to be called literal?
4. Ezekiel 38 (literal fulfillment, yes, but when?)
Dispensationalists often claim that Ezekiel's prophecy about the mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 36) and his prophetic vision of the resurrection of dry bones (Ezekiel 37, especially verse 12) require a future in modern times for the nation Israel. Dispensationalists would defend such a view by claiming that such prophecies should not be spiritualized, but should be taken literally. (Of course, they are correct in pointing out the fallacy of spiritualizing prophecies and applying them all to the New Testament church.)
Ezekiel's prophecy is expressed through the use of a common figure of speech, the metaphor. (In this case the metaphor is extended, so it would be more accurate to call it an allegory.) So, regarding the method of expression and the method of interpretation, it is recognized as figurative. Recognizing that the subject is Israel, the passage clearly says that Israel will arise. It really will happen. So, adopting the second use of the word "literal" as described above in section B, we could say that Israel was to have a literal comeback. Of course, this statement is based on a passage expressed in figurative language. But Israel's comeback is portrayed as a real, physical return to a real geographical area.
However, the important question is not whether Israel was prophesied to return to her land. The important question is "When?" All we have to do is read Ezra and Nehemiah to find out that the prophecy has already been fulfilled long ago. At the end of the Babylonian exile Israel did return to her land and the land became productive again. Ezekiel's prophecy was made early in the Babylonian exile, and fulfilled at the end of that exile. See the section entitled Some claim Ezekiel said in the paper "Two Israels."
So the dispensationalists, in pointing to the establishment of a nation called Israel in 1948, and in emphasizing her future existence as a nation during the millennium, have touted literalism, but have completely ignored the literal interpretation of the historical passages in Ezra and Nehemiah.
Of course, it is easy to claim double fulfillment by saying, "Yes, Israel was brought back to her land in several waves during the century following the exile, but it also happened again in 1948." But Ezekiel literally prophesied one return, not two returns. Double fulfillment creates more problems that it solves. (See the discussion of double fulfillment in the section entitled The Difference between Double Fulfillment and Double Meaning in the paper "'Fulfill,' Matthew 1:22, and Isaiah 7:14"). In addition, there is an important distinction that needs to be made between the nation of Israel in biblical times and the modern nation of Israel (see the paper Ancient Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant).
5. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (go out to meet and return)
Paul says that believers will "meet the Lord in the air."
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
What does it mean to "meet" the Lord? Here is Bruce's explanation:
To meet the Lord (17); Gk. eis apantēsin tou kyriou. When a dignitary paid an official visit or parousia to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escorting him on the final stage of his journey was called the apantēsis; it is similarly used in Mt. xxv. 6; Acts xxviii. 15. So the Lord is pictured as escorted to the earth by His people – those newly raised from death and those who have remained alive. (F. F. Bruce, commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in The New Bible Commentary, F. Davidson, Eerdmans, 1954)
When Bruce describes the word meet (apantēsis) as it is used in Acts 28:15, he says that it was
almost a technical term for the official welcome of a visiting dignitary by a deputation which went out from the city to greet him and escort him for the last part of his journey (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, Eerdmans, 1954, p. 527, footnote 26)
How was the word apantēsis used in extra-biblical sources?
The word seems to have been a kind of t.t. [technical term] for the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary – a usage which accords excellently with its NT usage. (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, 1929, p. 53)
Chrysostom, one of the early church fathers, was well known for his preaching and writing while he was Deacon at Antioch and later Archbishop of Constantinople during the late 300s and early 400s. His approach to the Bible was straightforward, in contrast to the allegorical approach used by his contemporaries in Alexandria. He obviously had the same concept of our Lord's return and our meeting him in the air, as explained above. In his homily on 1 Thessalonians 4 he said,
If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. And upon the coming of an affectionate father, his children indeed, and those who are worthy to be his children, are taken out in a chariot, that they may see and kiss him; but those of the domestics who have offended remain within. … Do you see how great is the honor? And as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him. (available online at newadvent.org)
One of the important ingredients in literal interpretation is this: paying attention to the historical-cultural meaning of a word. When we adopt the historical-cultural meaning of the word "meet" (apantēsis) as explained above, we conclude that the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to the earth take place one immediately after the other. They are not separated by a period of seven years. The church is caught up to meet Christ in the air and be with him on the remainder of his return to earth, and forever more.
The dispensational view of the end times includes a seven year tribulation and a two-phase return of Christ. According to that view, the rapture of the church occurs before that tribulation, and then the return of Christ to the earth occurs seven years later at the end of the tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is often cited by dispensationalists as compatible with that view. However, it is helpful to recognize two things: (1) verses 13-18 do not mention any tribulation, and (2) verse 17, which says that we will "meet the Lord in the air," favors a unified return of Christ. This is a clear example of the difference between eisegesis (bringing a particular belief to the passage) and exegesis (letting the passage speak for itself).
6. Hebrews 8 (old covenant obsolete)
The Abrahamic covenant included three aspects: first, many descendants; second, the land; and third, the blessing for all people (Christ as savior). This Abrahamic covenant was later expanded with the addition of the Law. The first aspect of the covenant was accomplished early, just before the exodus. The third aspect of the covenant was accomplished in Christ. But the second aspect of the covenant, the conditional promises regarding the land, failed because the people failed. (See the full discussion in the paper Ancient Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant.) So a new covenant was needed.
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Hebrews 8:7-8)
The new covenant was established by Christ (Luke 22:20) and the old covenant became obsolete and no longer relevant.
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)
Dispensationalists claim that the old system will be resurrected, including sacrifices in a temple in Jerusalem. But a literal reading of these Hebrews passages leads to the belief that the old covenant is obsolete, and the new covenant has taken its place.
E. Conclusion
All the sample passages cited above suffer at the hands of the dispensationalists. Their claimed literal interpretation must be seen for what it is – a smoke screen that masquerades as hermeneutics but functions as theological assumption.
Stephen Sammons has also examined the dispensational claim of literal interpretation. In his book, Reflections on Dispensationalism: Does a literal interpretation of the Bible support a pretribulation rapture? (CreateSpace/Amazon, 2012) he considers a variety of issues different than those considered in this paper. After examining dispensationalism in general, and then focusing specifically on the question of a pretribulational rapture, he comes to these conclusions:
… dispensationalism is not based on a plain, normal, historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible …. (Stephen P. Sammons, p. 190)
In essence, numerous texts must be reinterpreted from their plain, natural meanings in order to fit the dispensationalist pretribulation rapture. (op. cit., p. 191)
At some point it has to be admitted that the pretribulation rapture adherents have already determined what a text cannot mean because of their predetermined theological grid …. (op. cit., p. 192)
A plain, natural reading, based on a historical-grammatical interpretation, by itself does not support dispensationalism or its conclusions. (op. cit., p. 193)
The so-called literal hermeneutic, as employed by dispensationalists, is not a hermeneutic at all. It is a theological framework which is brought to the text and thus overrides proper interpretation.