The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

Unorthodox Viewpoints

The primary reason so many cults deny one or more of the essentials of the Christian Faith and end up embracing strange doctrines is that they do not use the historical-grammatical system of interpretation. Among the errors cults resort to are allegorizing the text of Scripture, taking anthropomorphisms literally, ignoring grammatical considerations, ignoring historical considerations, and taking Bible verses out of context.
By creating their own special allegorical or mystical interpretation of Scripture, many heretical and cultic groups make the Bible say anything they want it to say.

Course of Action

On the historical-grammatical means of interpreting the Bible, there must be conviction without compromise.


Literal
The word literal as used in hermeneutics (the science of interpretation), comes from the Latin sensus literalis, meaning the literal sense of the text, as opposed to a nonliteral or allegorical sense of it. It refers to the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys or codes.
The literal method of interpretation does not mean that everything in the Bible is true literally; rather, it means that everything is literally true (I'll clarify this distinction below).

Normal
Another way to describe the literal meaning of Scripture is that it embraces the normal, everyday, common understanding of the terms in the Bible. Words are given the meaning they normally have in common communication. This speaks of the basic, normal, or plain way of interpreting a Bible passage.

Historical
The word historical means that the sentences of Scripture should be understood in their historical setting. They should not be taken out of the space-time, cultural context in which they were uttered. It is the means by which the interpreter mentally transfers himself into the context in which the author uttered the words. This guards against the interpretive error of making the reader's historical or cultural context the norm for understanding the text.

Grammatical
This term indicates that the proper meaning of a sentence is rooted in its grammar. The sense of the passage emerges from the grammatical structure wherein all parts of speech—including nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, articles, prepositions, and the like—are placed in a proper form from which only a certain meaning can be derived. This method involves giving each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage of its day.

Authorial
Finally, the historical-grammatical meaning is the author's expressed meaning. It is the author who gives the meaning to the text, not the reader. It is the reader's obligation to discover the meaning that the author determined. To put it another way, only a meaner can give meaning to a text. Hence, what is meant in the text is what the meaner meant by it, not what the reader desires for it to mean.


The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate Figures of Speech
When the Bible speaks of the eye, arms, or wings of God (Psalm 34:15; 91:4; Isaiah 51:9), such impressions should not be taken literally. God does not have these physical features because "God is Spirit" (John 4:24). Likewise, He cannot literally be a rock (Pslam 42:9), which is material. When Jesus said, "I am the true vine" (John 15:1), the literal method of interpretation does not take this to mean He is a physical vine. What He said is literally true (namely, that believers derive their spiritual life from Him, the vine), but it is not true literally that Jesus is a physical vine.
Of course, sometimes it is difficult to determine when a passage should not be taken literally. Certain guidelines are helpful in making this determination. Briefly put, a text should be taken figuratively 1) when it is obviously figurative, as when Jesus said He was a gate (John 10:9); 2) when the text itself authorizes the figurative sense, as when Paul said he was using "allegory" (Galatians 4:24 NKJV); or 3) when a literal interpretation would contradict other truths inside or outside the Bible, as when the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Revelation 7:1). In short, as the dictum puts it, "When the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." Likewise, "When the literal sense does not make good sense [such as the claim that God is Spirit and yet has eyes, ears, and arms], then we should seek some other sense lest it result in nonsense."

The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate the Use of Types
A type may be defined as "an Old Testament institution, event, person, object, or ceremony which has reality and purpose in biblical history, but which also by divine design foreshadows something yet to be revealed." The New Testament clearly affirms that Christ is the fulfilment of many Old Testament types that prefigured Him. These types passed away when they were fulfilled by Christ—such as the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) and the Levitical sacrificial system (Hebrews 10:12-14). These Old Testament types found their literal fulfilment in Christ the antitype, being only the shadow of the substance that was ultimately found in Him (Colossians 2:17). This fulfilment is in no way a spiritualization or allegorization of any literal thing or event.

The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate the Use of Symbols
The Bible is filled with symbols. But each symbol is emblematic of something literal. For example, the book of Revelation contains many symbols that represent literal things. For instance, John said the "seven stars" in Christ's right hand were "the angels [messengers] of the seven churches" (Revelation 1:20), "the seven golden lampstands" were "the seven churches" (1:20), "the bowls full of incense" were "the prayers of saints" (5:8), and "the waters" were "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages" (17:15). Clearly, then, each symbol represents something literal. There are often textual clues that point us to the literal truth found in a symbol—either in the immediate context, or in the broader context of the whole of Scripture.

The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate the Use of Parables and Allegories
Jesus often used parables that were not to be taken literally. Yet each parable always conveys a literal point. That Jesus wanted His parables to be clear to those who were receptive to them is evident by the fact He carefully interpreted two of them for the disciples—the parables of the sower (Matthew 13:3-9) and the tares (13:24-30). He did this not only so there would be no uncertainty as to their meaning, but to guide believers as to the proper method to use when interpreting the other parables. The fact that Christ did not interpret His subsequent parables indicates that He fully expected believers to understand the literal truths intended by His parables by following the methodology He illustrated for them.
Allegorical language also sometimes appears in Scripture. Paul, for example, used an allegory and labelled it as such (Galatians 4:24). Comparing different Bible translations on this verse shows Paul's meaning: "This may be interpreted allegorically" (ESV); or: "The things may be taken figuratively" (NIV); or: These "things are symbolic" (NKJV). But even allegorical statements such as this communicate a literal truth that can be understood.


Biblical Confirmation of a Literal Interpretation

There are numerous confirmations of the literal method if interpretation found in the Bible. Following are some representative examples:

1. Later biblical texts take earlier ones as literal.
For example, the action events in Genesis 1-2 are taken literally in later books (for example, Exodus 20:10-11). This is likewise the case regarding the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:13), the fall of Adam and his resulting death (Romans 5:12,14), the Flood (Matthew 24:38), and the accounts of Jonah (Matthew 12:40-41), Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2-4,11), and many other historical figures.

2. Prophecies about the Messiah were literally fulfilled.
Over 100 Old Testament predictions about the Messiah were fulfilled literally in Jesus' first coming, including the facts He would be 1) the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15); 2) from the line of Seth (Genesis 4:25; see also Luke 3:38 and compare with Genesis 3:15); 3) a descendant of Shem (Genesis 9:26); 4) the offspring of Abraham (Genesis 12:3); 5) from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10); 6) the son of David (Jeremiah 23:5-6); 7) conceived of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14); 8) be born of a virgin (Isaiah 40:3); 10) the coming king (Zechariah 9:9); 11) the One suffering for our sins (Isaiah 53); 12) the One pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); 13) the One dying about A.D. 33 (Daniel 9:24-25); and 14) the One rising from the dead Psalm 2,16).

3. By specifically indicating within the text the presence of parables (see Matthew 13:3) or an "allegory" (Galatians 4:24), the Bible thereby indicates that the ordinary meaning is a literal one.

4. By giving the interpretation of a parable
Jesus revealed that there is a literal meaning behind them (Matthew 13:18-23).

5. By rebuking those who did not interpret the resurrection literally
Jesus indicated the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was the correct one (Matthew 22:29-32; see also Psalm 2,16).

6. By interpreting prophecy literally
(Luke 4:16-21), Jesus indicated His acceptance of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.


Resource: Conviction Without Compromise by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes