Email this article to a friend Fill out this form to email a link to this article to your friend.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Your Friend's Name:
Your Friend's Email:
Message to Friend:
Word Verification:	(This prevents web bots from submitting this form.)
Cancel
Privacy Notice: The information submitted in this form will not be used in any other manner than to deliver the email. We will not resale the information.

What is thestarting point for properly understanding and interpreting prophecy? There isoften confusion and disagreement among Christians as to the best method ofapproaching the interpretation of biblical texts. In this essay the authoraffirms both the inerrancy of Scripture as well as its ability to be understoodwhen interpreted plainly and consistently. The Bible is authoritative, and themeanings expressed in the texts are true and have reference to what is realunless the context indicates otherwise.

Topromote "literal interpretation" in a post-modern environment wouldbe futile unless people were sympathetic to some traditional values and open toconsider the arguments. One value is the necessity to retain a view of truthand objective reality. A literal system is based on this view of objectivereality, yet the literal principle cannot ensure objective practice ininterpretation. In fact, rather than supposing an objectivity, I desire topromote "literal" as a believer in Christ and as one blessed with thepresence and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Thesetwo presuppositions will affect the objectivity of the thought process, butboth faith and the illumination given by the Spirit are indispensable toreaching valid biblical interpretations.

Literalinterpretation formulates. -A system that takes what the Bible claims to betrue of itself as a necessary framework for interpretation. Basic Reformationclaims of sold Scriptura, solafide and the perspicuity of Scripture frame asystem of literal interpretation.

Inaddition to formulating this system, I acknowledge that there are othernecessary influences on interpretation. An interpreter brings somepreunderstandings that will influence the interpretation of individual texts.Irenaeus once described one as like placing together a grand mosaic, or likeassembling Homeric verses into their correct and coherent plot structure. Thisinfluence involves a biblical theology of progressive revelation for the wholeBible. Further, it is necessary to reconstruct the historical references from atext to understand the world to which, and about which, the text speaks. Whileboth a theology and a historical reconstruction may influence an interpretationof a text, they ought never override the commitments of a literal system.

Whilethe task of gaining a consensus may seem futile and anachronistic to most, itmay seem unnecessary for others. It is for these others that this essay iswritten, because, as Martin Marty has commented, "Literalists uniteagainst their opponents, but they are far from unanimous on matters they regardas important."[1] The objective of this essay is toidentify the necessary and sufficient concerns needed to formulate a system ofliteral interpretation. If "literal interpretation" is included in adoctrinal statement, it is important that there is agreement on what isbelieved.

Theintroduction of "literal" must consider the most comprehensive use ofthe term to refer to a system of interpretation. That system will then entailtwo related senses of literal.

Literal is acommitment to understanding that the Bible's authority is embedded in themeanings expressed in the words of the text

Thisfirst use of literal is a connotative sense, which reflects a shared beliefabout what the Bible claims to be true of itself; the Bible is God's Wordwritten in human words.

Literalinterpretation has traditionally been considered a staple in biblical studies,whether it was as the basic interpretation at Antioch or as a preliminaryinterpretation in an Alexandrian approach. These early and pre-criticalapproaches came under a fundamental challenge in the rise to prominence ofhistorical criticism. Marty summarized the historical debate: "In Englandand America, at least, for over a century there have been intellectual defensesof biblical literalism. While Harper (Wm. Rainey Harper, 1892) and his kindwere making Chicago, Yale, and Harvard advance stations for the 'scientificstudy of the Bible,' theologians at Princeton were turning that school into oneof the bastions of a literalist approach to inerrant Scripture."[2]These Princetonians were concerned about the theological ramifications ofcritical interpretation, since they considered the Bible to be a specialrevelation of God. They concluded that the Bible in the original autographs wasverbally and completely inspired, and thus authoritative. Those who consideredthis doctrine relevant, relied upon certain principles that explainedinterpretation. These principles are considered in the following summaries.

TheBible speaks with the authority of God.The Bible's authority resides in what God has to say about subjects, and whatHe has to say to various generations of His people.[3] Thisaffirmation of the Bible's testimony about itself has been duly noted anddeveloped by biblical scholars.[4]

Theauthoritative speaking of a written document resides in the type of meaningsexpressed by the words of the text. Scholars in legal fields, such as Robert H.Bork,[5]in literary fields, such as Leland Ryken,[6] and in philosophicalfields, such as E. D. Hirsch,[7] have acknowledged the importance ofthe words of a text. Individual words must be taken seriously. Interpreters donot have the freedom to change wording without changing meaning. They do nothave the right to disregard words, or even forms of letters, nor to manipulatethe wording as critical scholars frequently do. Rather a text is read word byword, line upon line, as the reader gains a comprehension of the meaningexpressed in a text.

Theauthoritative meanings are understood as messages ex-pressed only if the wordsof a text are read in context. Words by themselves don't represent truths;messages expressed by words communicate truth or error.[8]

Thuswords are read by themselves, and in relation to the immediate context, in anattempt to recognize the intended message. That message understood thensummarizes, in the reader's mind, the type of meaning expressed in the text.And that message, validly understood by a reader, states the truth of the text.

Theimportance of reading the words of a text in context, to understand theintended sense, has been stated by David Cooper. In his "Golden Rule ofInterpretation," he states, "When the plain sense of Scripture makescommon sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary,ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context...indicate clearly other- wise."[9] Although the influence of theimmediate context is introduced by Cooper as a qualification, it is adetermining qualification, overriding at times a plain sense. Thus I havechosen to introduce the determinative influence of context first as thecontrolling principle.

Thedeterminative context L the immediate textual context because it directlyinfluences word usage. Other contexts when relevant must be seen as providing asupporting influence. While the subject of "context" may seem easilydefined, the grammatical, historical, literary, and theological factors areoften difficult to recognize in their appropriate influence. Numerous contextsmay come into consideration: parallel biblical passages; the human author'shistorical consciousness; Israel's cultural beliefs at the time of composition;antecedent canonical theology; social, cultural and comniunicative issues inthe original communication; even contemporary problems and questions. [10]All of these may have a supporting influence in a final decision about the appropriatesense of a word, or words, but the determinative influence must go to theimmediate textual context. That context fashions a textual usage which may beclarified and amplified by other supporting contexts.

Inan attempt to clarify the abstract issues in the discussion of a literal systemof interpretation, Isaiah 9:1-7 will be explored. One issue among contemporaryinterpreters is the person of the promised king of the line of David. Does thetext say that he is a God-man or merely a historic king who is subsequentlyrevealed to be, in fact, a God-man.[11] The literal system gives top priorityto the wording of the text in the near-context of the oracle (9:1-7), and thenit considers Isaiah's broader context (as 7:14, Immanuel, 11:1-16, and so on).

Theoracle announces a word of joy to the dark land of Galilee because anunidentified leader shall appear. This person brings joy because he is involvedin an enlarged nation that wins release as from an oppressive invader.

Thenthis person is introduced as one born to shoulder the government of David'skingdom. As unexpected as light in the midst of darkness, so are the names ofthis ruler-each name expresses a qualification of the ultimate hope of theDavidic line: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince ofPeace.

Thequestion turns on the person of the one called "Mighty God." Doesthis name speak of the king as God? Contemporary scholars question whetherseventh century Israel believed her Messiah would be a God-man. Delitszchquestions whether that subject is even addressed in the Old Testament.[12]In order to answer the question, the force of the wording of the text will beexamined more closely, under the related senses of literal.

Sothis connotative use of literal first of all refers to a literal system ofinterpretation, derived from the fact that the Bible is God's Word expressed inhuman's words. The two following senses of "literal" depend upondeciding what a word has reference to and what sense the word ought to have incontext.

Literal is acommitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and havereference to what is rea4 unless the context indicates otherwise.

Thiscommitment is based on the basic belief: the Bible is the Word of God and allthat God says is true. This belief is about the type of statements found in theBible, rather than the type of language, or language usage. "Anystatement, literal or metaphorical, may be true or false, and its referent maybe real or unreal." [13] The belief in inerrancy implies thatbiblical statements are true and have reference to reality. There may be anexception, like statements you find in parables, which imagine an experience,as in Luke 15:11 (Mw), "There was a man who had two sons..." Thetruth there does not have reference to the reality of a father and his sonsexisting in history, but to an attitude among the Pharisees, as imaged in theeldest son. Likewise, there may be statements like that of the devil, "Allthis I will give..." (Matthew 4:9 Mv), which may be a lie, and thus areference to what is unreal. In each case, the near-context clarifies the typeof statement expressed in the text.

Whilethere are some exceptions (so clarified from the near- context), the Bible isthe revelation of God, and so its statements are true in sense and real inreference. Thus historical narrative refers to past facts, prophetic discoursesrefer both to present and to future facts, and epistles refer to historicalpeople and the factual workings of God in salvation.

Thecriticism raised is that "by deduction they argued that God, being God andthus inerrant, spoke through a necessarily merrant Bible, which they turnedinto a kind of fact-book."[14] While the Bible is more than afact-book, it is not less than that. A final answer to such a criticism wouldrequire an examination of the type of statement, text by text, and ademonstration of the probable historicity of each. A number of articlesconsider the issue of historicity.[15] But with our present stage ofknowledge, attempts at demonstration have not proven persuasive to all. Yetsuch a deduction is clearly preferred to critical opinions, such as that thefinal myth of Exodus is clearly not meant to be a literal version of events.[16]In many such critical treatments, the myth is taken as true in some theologicalsense, but unreal historically. But what basis exists for any validdistinction, except for some personal preference?

Whenfaith rests in the Bible's testimony that God speaks, and when God's authorshipinfluences a biblical text, like Isaiah 9:6-7, then the reality of a text'sreference must be carefully considered. Two questions must be asked: is Isaiah9:6-7 a literal or a metaphorical statement, and, then, to what reality doesthe statement refer?

Thestatement in question is a list of names (v. 6). The sense of some names may bemetaphorical (referring to a king as counselor or father), but in this essay,one name is at issue. If the text refers to the king as "Mighty God,"to what reality is the text referring? If the name "Mighty God"refers to a man, then the ontological reality remains a man in history, or inprophecy, and the statement is metaphorical. There is nothing in the text toindicate that a god-like man becomes in fact God. Ontologically, a divineperson is uncreated and infinite, while a human person is created and finite.The two references are distinct. It is textually incompatible for the same textto refer to a mere human, in a historical context, and to a God-man in thecontext of Jesus' advent. The statement would thus be taken as equivocal; in ahistorical context, metaphorical; and in a prophetic context, literal. Thus thetrue reality to which the state-ment refers is lost.

Thequestion of Isaiah's comprehension of what he says, or the historic audience's understandingof these words, is not the determining issue. A prophet is not the ultimatesource of his message (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Rather, at issue in the type ofstatement is the use of the language in the context. What is the textualevidence that the term "Mighty God" should be understood in a literalsense rather than a metaphorical sense? This is the issue to be considered now.

Literal is anexpectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in theirprimary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

Theexpectation of a literal sense reflects an important belief in the compositionof the Bible. The biblical authors did not speak in an enigmatic fashion, sothat a statement carries two textually unrelated or contradictory meanings.This is another way of talking about the perspicuity of Scripture, in which atext in context has only one sense: probably the plain sense. Thehistorical-critical method has been faulted by believers because of thecritical presuppositions that provide a foundation for the method. [17]In addition, the method raises further suspicion if it supports the validunderstanding of the same text in two textually unrelated senses: what it meantand what it means.

Thisexpectation of a single, plain, or literal, sense is also based on the beliefthat the Bible is composed in human words. But a literal sense, while easilyillustrated, is difficult to define. So Ramm or Cooper use words like"plain, primary, ordinary, usual, or normal," but in spite of themultiplied descriptions, each simply represents a literary maxim. The maximrepresents a first attempt at recognizing the word's meaning, in which a wordprobably is used in an unmarked or plain sense. Thomas Ice has appropriatelyconcluded: "Cooper does not use the phrase 'common sense,' as criticssuggest, by appealing to an abstract theory of common understanding latent inhumanity. Instead he defines it within a literary context." [18]The reader of the text recognizes this plain sense as an initial expectation ofthe sense from a consideration of basic literacy. Yet each reader's basicliteracy reflects the culture within which he has gained his literacy. Thisexpectation opens the Bible to a layperson to read and study translations forhimself. Such an expectation, with further education, can become a moresophisticated expectation of literal sense based on study of biblicalvocabulary from lexical and semantic investigation. Still, the layperson, asany reader, must always test his expectation of a literal sense in view of thefacts in the immediate context, and, as Cooper adds, "studied in light ofrelated passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths."

Theissue of a single, plain sense may be illustrated in the Isaiah 9:6 text. Inthe normal sense of language, our initial reading of the sense becomes thestarting point in reading the oracle. In such a reading, "Mighty God"would name a divine person and "everlasting" would refer to a divineattribute. This initial reading is supported within the context of the text.The ultimate cause of this remarkable king is the "zeal of the Lord"(9:7), and the reign of this king will begin in history, "from that timeon and forever" (9:7). The comprehensiveness of His government and peaceknows no limits (9:7). This oracle could only be realized by a divine person ifthe language is taken at face value.

If,on the other hand, a historical king is what the text meant, then the name mustbe taken metaphorically. This has the support of a series of metaphors. Incomparison to other sources of national direction, the king is a wonderfulcounselor. In comparing the nation to a family, the king is an everlastingfather. In comparison to other human rulers with power, the king is like amighty god. But was any king in Israel ever considered to be God, let alone themighty God? Was any king ever worshiped in Jerusalem, as pagan kings had beenworshiped? Does not the law prohibit such worship (Ex. 20:2-6)? So it isimprobable that this name has the sense of a godlike king.

Thisexposes the untenable treatment that the historical-critical method oftenimposes on texts. [19] As a result, the text of Isaiah 9:6would be treated as supporting two senses for which there is only supposedhistorical support. When such a method validates textually unrelated meaningsbetween what it meant and what it means, the objective truth and reality of thetext is lost. Either the text means a divine-human person or it means a merelyhuman person. And this determination must be made based on the immediate textualcontext.

MartinMarty raises a final, important question: "What, if anything... does theliteralist devotion to biblical inerrancy solve?"[20] Theanswer features two basic distinctives of the Reformation. The first frees theinterpreter to operate consistently in faith toward God and what God says-solafide. In distinction to a historical-critical method, in which everything to beinterpreted is submitted to doubt or skepticism, a literal system begins inaccepting the Bible's own claims. Such an approach represents the fairness thatany author would desire, in which a sympathetic hearing would precede anycritical judgments.

Thesecond distinctive features the authority resident in sold Scriptura. The wordsof a text, understood in context, determine the type of meaning expressed inthe Bible. As such, Scripture determines the meaning in distinction to someother person or context being treated as the determining authority.

Thetype of meaning involves the single sense of the message expressed in a text.This commitment prevents the words from being historically or culturallyconditioned, so that, as in Isaiah 9:6, one truth is seen in a historicalcontext and a different truth is seen in a prophetic context. At issue is theloss of truth expressed in a text and the corresponding reference to reality.And that loss is too great to sacrifice for a supposed historical or culturalnecessity

Yetthese definitions of literal interpretation, while necessary to preserve theinterpretation of the truth taught in the Bible, are not sufficient to solveall the debates over interpretations. This insufficiency is because thedefinitions are neither innate to common sense nor complete in considering allthe issues related to valid interpretation. On one side, it does not rest inScottish Common Sense Philosophy, which is based "on the belief thatreasonable people could intuit moral absolutes"[21] Ifsuch an intuition would provide a consensus about what determines the meaning,then the difficult choices of interpretation, as illustrated in Isaiah 9:6,would at least have an agreement on the basis for making these choices.

Onthe other side, the literal system is not a complete consideration of all therelevant issues related to interpretation; therefore, there should not be anunrealistic expectation that agreement in interpretations will be reached inliteral interpretation of individual texts and particularly of problem texts.But the literal system does cast an appropriate framework within whichvalidation can be considered in the examination of alternate interpretations ofa text. Valid interpretations rely upon reason working with the wording oftexts subject to the power of the Holy Spirit, and they rely on belief in anobjective world of God's creation and the objective reality of God.

[1] Martin B. Marty,"Literalism" in Bible Review, vol. x, no. 2, April 1994:42-43.

[2] Ibid. 42. See further James Barr,Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978): 191-207.

[3] David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripturein Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 14-31.

[4] Wayne Grudem "Scripture'sSelf-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture"in Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 19-64,

[5] Robert H. Bork, The Tempting ofAmerica (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1990).

[6] Leland Ryken, Words of Delight (GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1987).

[7] E. D. Hirsch, Validity inInterpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973).

[8] John S. Feinberg, "Truth:Relationship of Theories of Truth to Hermeneutics," in Hermeneu-tics,Inerrancy and the Bible, eds. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984), 1-50; and Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book, (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1960).

[9] David L. Cooper, The World's GreatestLibrary Graphically Illustrated (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970),11. Emphasis mine.

[10] Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation.

[11] This particular problem is chosen toillustrate the importance of certain Old Testament prophecies. While there istypological prophecy, there is also direct, predictive prophecy. To read themas historical types when in fact they are predictions is to lose the truth ofthe passage.

[12] Franz Delitzsch, The Psalms, vol. 1(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1871), 64-78.

[13] 0. B. Caird, The Language and Imageryof the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 131.

[14] Marty, 42.

[15] D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge,Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986); and Earl D.Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984). A number of articles discuss historicity. Gleason L.Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

[16] Karen Armstrong, A History of God(New York: Knopf, 1993).

[17] D. A. Carson, "RecentDevelopments in the Doctrine of Scripture," in Hermeneutics, Authority andCanon, 1-48.

[18] Thomas D. Ice, "DispensationalHermeneutics" in Issues in Hermeneutics, eds. Willis and Master (Chicago:Moody Press, 1994), 35.

[19] This untenable treatment of the textis illustrated in a conversation between an imagined critic and reader: A readerof Isaiah 9:6 wonders aloud about the meaning of the text: "Who is thisking?" The critic responds, "In Isaiah's time, it meant Solomon, theSon of David." In a follow-up question: "Did it only meanSolomon?" "Well, yes, Solomon was the historic king that matched thewords of the text most closely. This is what it meant. "But then the timeschanged and Jesus was born. And with the events surrounding his birth, newfacts appeared and the words took on a new and different meaning." Thenthe reader became even more confused. "How can it mean both Solomon andChrist? Which does the text mean? Does it mean Solomon or Christ?" Thecritic then seeks to explain. "Solomon is a type of Christ." But thereader then puzzled over what the type might be. "Solomon is 'mighty god'in the sense that he is powerful like God among other kings. "Christ isMighty God in the sense that He is God, Himself." So the one sense is nota type of the other sense but involves two textually distinct senses. And thesame words are treated as though they were an equivocal statement. The readerthen wonders if there is any way out of our problem. There is! The same senseis meant in both the historic and in the prophetic reading. In the historicreading it meant more than any historic king and so held out prophetic hope forthe future. In the futuristic reading, the language matches Christ and Christalone in its full force. Christ is the One about whom Isaiah spoke and that ina single sense.

[20] Marty, 42.

[21] Ibid.