Has Literalism Become a Corruption?

[Der Alte]

Okay, Der Alter, let's change gears a bit and move to a new venue.

On the subject of Satan there are two primary passages that Christians consider to be descriptions of Satan, in Ezek 28 and Isa 14. There are generally three views of the meaning of these passages in Christianity:

1) Commentaries in the OLB suggest that some scholars find in these passages the historical meaning pertaining to the kingdoms and principals mentioned and the moral message attached to their conduct and demeanor toward God.

2) Others see in these passages a metaphoric representation of the properties and features of Satan as a literal, spiritual being, the chief fallen angel.

3) Still others take the metaphor further and agree that the original metaphor of Satan is true, but that the individual Satan is itself only a deeper metaphor for the fallen human condition in everyone.

Since in a previous post you appear to be in significant agreement with the literalism identified in the op, I’m assuming you would insist that meaning in the aforementioned passages be limited to the #1 position. Is this correct or no? If no, why not?

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. it is about the king of Babylon. Ezekiel 28 appears to be about the king of Tyre.

 

[muddleglum]

Evangelicals seem more adamant than ever that we must hold tightly to a literal understanding of the Bible in order to preserve its authority. One writer tells us, “…we must interpret the Bible in the sense in which it is written …The Bible is to be interpreted according to the ordinary rules of language.”[1]

Not disagreeing.

Question: What do you mean by "literal"?
Moses was given a pattern for the tabernacle. Was the pattern in Heaven literal? I would say so. Was the tabernacle literal? I would say it was a symbol of the real.
What I'm trying to suggest is that literal can mean either "true" or "physical." All too often I've seen people talking about scenes in Rev. as literal and meaning physical. Helicopters? Perhaps that type of thinking is one problem.

Another question: Why cannot I use the grammatical-historical interpretation of scriptures on your challenge? Of course, the context is cut off by you so it cannot be used well but I would say that Jesus is using a type-archetype, which is something that the grammatical-historical interpretation accepts. So that isn't your problem. I think the problem is what you also point out and that is stopping at that point. And, BTW, the grammatical-historical interpretation isn't even used rightly all the time anyway.

For instance, the story of Lot in trying to take care of the strangers. After studying the historical context of the time and the plain words and meanings, I got quite a different understanding about what happened. After learning that literal (in truth as well as physical (historical)) meaning, I could see a foreshadowing of Christ presented plainly there.

Same with the story of Elisha and the bears. I've never seen the chapter put in the proper historical context so lost the foreshadowing of Christ until I did that.
Nearly the same with the story of Tamar and Judah, but without the foreshadowing of Christ that I can see. However, there is a big story of faith there that is mainly missed as well as a huge clue to the Church's relationship with Christ.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. it is about the king of Babylon. Ezekiel 28 appears to be about the king of Tyre. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

How do you know these passages are not about Satan?

 

[Der Alte]

How do you know these passages are not about Satan?

The subject of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are named in the respective passage.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

The subject of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are named in the respective passage.

In other words, the rules of grammatical-historical literalism prevent you from understanding these passages metaphorically; they only allow an historical and moral interpretation, is this not correct?

 

[Der Alte]

In other words, the rules of grammatical-historical literalism prevent you from understanding these passages metaphorically; they only allow an historical and moral interpretation, is this not correct?

I'd say that common sense plays, at least, a small part. For example, if I say, "I am holding a red apple in my hand." That cannot mean, "I have a green pear on my foot." Since neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT, then neither should I. And since they didn't find any hidden meaning in the OT, without some really good evidence, which I have yet to see, I wouldn't think they included any hidden meanings in the NT.

 

[muddleglum]

In other words, the rules of grammatical-historical literalism prevent you from understanding these passages metaphorically; they only allow an historical and moral interpretation, is this not correct?

I don't think this demonstrates what you want.

That's one huge problem there. A taunt like these needs to be looked at differently. The fact that each passage's metaphorical interpretation was first presented to the Church by men declared as heretics also gives me pause. My own observation that pagan imagery and Jewish imagery are different, coupled with the fact that this is a taunt, which is taking a person's own boasts and demonstrating them as wrong makes it difficult for me to accept their interpretation. Furthermore, what looks like metaphors in Isaiah are actually boasts of Babylon, including being the morning star. All this needs untangled, before seeing the real metaphors. But metaphors are allowed in the grammatical historical interpretation anyway.

The worse part is that this doesn't seem to have anything to do with foreseeing the glory of Jesus Christ, which is the basic theme of scripture. To make matters worse, most people call Satan by a title in the Isaiah passage that is given to Christ in the N.T.

Accepting this as Satan is closer to literalism than you might like. At least my literal evangelical acquaintances use the word literal a lot when they defend this.

Find a better passage or two.

 

[muddleglum]

I'd say that common sense plays, at least, a small part. For example, if I say, "I am holding a red apple in my hand." That cannot mean, "I have a green pear on my foot." Since neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT, then neither should I. And since they didn't find any hidden meaning in the OT, without some really good evidence, which I have yet to see, I wouldn't think they included any hidden meanings in the NT.

Why are you saying "hidden" meaning? Dark sayings of old? as the Psalms say? Parables have a "hidden" meaning and some people argue what the meaning means in some of the parables.

How about Paul's teaching how to use the O.T. in the beginning of 1 Cor 10? He gives a few examples and calls them types. There are plenty of types in the O.T. that point to Jesus Christ. The Law, wrote Paul, is supposed to be a tutor. Can you go through the Law and see all that points to Jesus Christ? There is quite a lot of material and I have hardly scratched the surface. Why did Paul write the last half of Gal 4?

 

[FireDragon76]

Since neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT, then neither should I.

That's not really true... many of the prophecies quoted in the NT are esoteric or hidden to the historical-grammatical context.

 

[Der Alte]

Why are you saying "hidden" meaning? Dark sayings of old? as the Psalms say? Parables have a "hidden" meaning and some people argue what the meaning means in some of the parables.

How about Paul's teaching how to use the O.T. in the beginning of 1 Cor 10? He gives a few examples and calls them types. There are plenty of types in the O.T. that point to Jesus Christ. The Law, wrote Paul, is supposed to be a tutor. Can you go through the Law and see all that points to Jesus Christ? There is quite a lot of material and I have hardly scratched the surface. Why did Paul write the last half of Gal 4?

I agree with what you said. The NT does refer to events in the OT as types and shadows. Parables are used n the NT. I conceded all that way back. I'm referring to some people finding heretofore hidden meanings. I will post this well known axiom again, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." The converse is also true "If the plain sense does not make good sense, then another sense should be sought." For example, Jesus was not literally a light, a door, a loaf of bread, a vine, etc.

 

[muddleglum]

I agree with what you said. The NT does refer to events in the OT as types and shadows. Parables are used n the NT. I conceded all that way back. I'm referring to some people finding heretofore hidden meanings. I will post this well known axiom again, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." The converse is also true "If the plain sense does not make good sense, then another sense should be sought." For example, Jesus was not literally a light, a door, a loaf of bread, a vine, etc.

Interesting. So if I find a type in the O.T., say Elisha was a type of Christ, would you immediately say that I cannot because no N.T. writer interpreted it and therefore it must be taken only as literal, physical history OR
Would you merely inquire what rules I followed to arrive to my conclusion, see that the grammatical-historical context is maintained, and that the sense proceeds naturally from that before saying that it seems fine from that aspect? (without agreeing that it actually is a type)

BTW, this fits with your converse, because it illustrates why Elisha and the bears (and the whole chapter) is sensible.

I'll warn you that all that I've ever found just echos the Gospel. Nothing new, like cheese for communion, just encouraging to see.

 

[Der Alte]

Interesting. So if I find a type in the O.T., say Elisha was a type of Christ, would you immediately say that I cannot because no N.T. writer interpreted it and therefore it must be taken only as literal, physical history OR
Would you merely inquire what rules I followed to arrive to my conclusion, see that the grammatical-historical context is maintained, and that the sense proceeds naturally from that before saying that it seems fine from that aspect? (without agreeing that it actually is a type)

BTW, this fits with your converse, because it illustrates why Elisha and the bears (and the whole chapter) is sensible.

I'll warn you that all that I've ever found just echos the Gospel. Nothing new, like cheese for communion, just encouraging to see.

Kinda hard to be adamant with what-if scenarios. The other guy was proposing that he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject. There is a certain, recently moved, controversial theology group which says the "stick of Joseph" in Ezek 37:16-19 refers to the 19th century founder of their sect and the book on which he founded the sect. They justify their interpretation by pointing to the parables, etc. in the Bible.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

The other guy was proposing that he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject.

What other guy proposed in this thread that "...he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject"? Can you provide a post #? This guy's post must have slipped past me, I can't find it anywhere.

neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT

So what do you make of Gal 4:22-31? And you seem to conveniently forget that Jesus taught almost exclusively in figurative language. So what if He didn't "find esoteric meanings" from the OT. He didn't tell us the church was to form or that homosexuality, abortion or premarital sex are wrong. He didn't say a lot of things. His not saying this or that is not evidence of anything. It apparently wasn't part of His purpose to teach specifically on these things nor to "find esoteric meanings from the OT" either. So what?

Your comment, "The subject of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are named in the respective passage." leaves questions unanswered. The subject of Jn 2:19 was destruction of a temple and it being raised back up in three days. Literal meanings are the conceptual paints to present broader meanings. Where in the Bible does God inform us that we are not to look for broader meaning beyond the literal subjects unless it is referenced as such in the text?

 

[muddleglum]

Kinda hard to be adamant with what-if scenarios. The other guy was proposing that he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject. There is a certain, recently moved, controversial theology group which says the "stick of Joseph" in Ezek 37:16-19 refers to the 19th century founder of their sect and the book on which he founded the sect. They justify their interpretation by pointing to the parables, etc. in the Bible.

I agree with your example, obviously.
But I agree with the title of this thread. I'm sure you have found meanings to "literal" that make your head swim. Helicopters flying around in the Revelation. The examples in the first post of this thread. Being told that Paul wasn't presenting an allegory in Gal 4, but just explaining one. Pentecost wrote against the "allegorical" method without understanding it. (Ramm, at least, understood it, even if he didn't seem to agree with it.) The common use of literal to mean the physical and, often, to mean the prosaic. These forms of literalism are those that are corrupt and can destroy the simple meaning of a passage.

My wife would probably agree that the "stick of Joseph" is me. At least she calls me a stick in the mud.... :-D

 

[Der Alte]

What other guy proposed in this thread that "...he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject"? Can you provide a post #? This guy's post must have slipped past me, I can't find it anywhere.

That would be you [Post #30]

So what do you make of Gal 4:22-31? And you seem to conveniently forget that Jesus taught almost exclusively in figurative language. So what if He didn't "find esoteric meanings" from the OT. He didn't tell us the church was to form or that homosexuality, abortion or premarital sex are wrong. He didn't say a lot of things. His not saying this or that is not evidence of anything. It apparently wasn't part of His purpose to teach specifically on these things nor to "find esoteric meanings from the OT" either. So what?

​

I have forgotten nothing. I think I said early on that I recognized identified figurative language in the Bible. What do I make of Gal 4:22-31?

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.​

Your comment, "The subject of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are named in the respective passage." leaves questions unanswered.

Not for me.

The subject of Jn 2:19 was destruction of a temple and it being raised back up in three days. Literal meanings are the conceptual paints to present broader meanings. Where in the Bible does God inform us that we are not to look for broader meaning beyond the literal subjects unless it is referenced as such in the text?

John 2:19 was an allegory which the disciples understood after the resurrection. That is where context comes in, vss. 20-22 explains it.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Good time to recap our discussion to this point, DA

Truth plays a far more vital role in religious discussion than most Christians seem to realize. Christ identified Himself as Truth, Scripture expounds the nobility of truth, yet the concept and application of truth is of as little concern to Christians as it is anyone else. Imagician points out pretty much the same principle in his thread, “A simple question with a simple answer…”.

How can someone who identifies him or herself as Christian be at enmity with truth encountered in discussion—especially in discussion of Christian doctrine and principles? What does it say of Christianity if it’s difficult to even have an honest discussion about prescriptive/moral/ethical/spiritual matters?

Thread numbers are in brackets for verification.

I asked you this simple question DA…. “…using the interpretive method derived from lexical definitions, Scriptural and historical evidence* and without the assistance of vv. 21-22, would you be able to determine whether or not Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Jn 2:18-20?” [30]

Having gone through similar attempts to get questions answered with intellectual integrity, I thought it prudent to add this: “(Before answering, consider the meaning of Jn 3:19)” [30]

Those who are Christ’s are alleged to love the light (truth) and hate the darkness (all things false). Jn 10:27 says that only Christ’s sheep “hear” His voice. His sheep are those who would certainly hunger for the light of truth. I included Jn 3:19 because I know you; you are legion, though we’re all members at some time or another. Your responses are predictable enough that I figured I’d have occasion to use Jn 3:19 to make a point and get the question in the OP finally answered.

DA: “Why should I even think about interpreting John 2:18-20 and ignore vss. 21-22? That's about like asking me to interpret Matt 6:10 and ignore vss. 9 and 11. You want me to interpret Jn 2:18-20 and ignore the next to vss.” [31]

After explaining your syntactical error I again asked, “…will you concede that the grammatical-historical [literal] method of interpretation is incapable of making a distinction of whether a verse is symbolic or literal?” [32]

DA: Why should I make such a concession? You have not proved your argument. [33]

I responded patiently: “What argument are you referring to? In the op I gave some background first then asked a question. I'm still asking the question.” [34]

DA: Once again you have not provided anything convincing to make the concession you asked me to make. [35]

I was only asking you to answer a simple question truthfully. My observation is that it is the light (truth) my request beckoned you toward you hated and couldn’t bring yourself to embrace. You were a veritable ballerina—twist, pirouette, leap into the air….anything to avoid answering a single, simple question truthfully. How is this aversion to light possible if Christ Himself is truth, the truth is in us and our principle goal as Christians is to embrace and defend the truth? [Hint: the literal is completely unable to answer this, but an allegorical understanding of the Scriptures can explain it in painful detail]

So I changed it up a bit, asking the same question from a different set of verses, the popular Satan passages (Ezek 28:12-19 and Isa 14:1-27), read by harsh literalists as having only historical and moral meaning, read by others as a metaphor for the fallen angel Satan while some go further and see Satan as yet deeper metaphor for fallen human nature. I asked, “…the rules of grammatical-historical literalism prevent you from understanding these passages metaphorically; they only allow an historical and moral interpretation, is this not correct?” [45]

DA: if I say, "I am holding a red apple in my hand." That cannot mean, "I have a green pear on my foot." Since neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT, then neither should I. And since they didn't find any hidden meaning in the OT, without some really good evidence, which I have yet to see, I wouldn't think they included any hidden meanings in the NT. [46]

So yet again, instead of providing a simple, truthful answer you took off at a gallop, dragging Jesus and the NT authors behind your getaway horse to throw up another smokescreen.

Then, in a thread to someone else you make this statement….

DA: The other guy was proposing that he could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22. But an example of hidden meaning, found in scripture, which I vehemently reject. [52]

Of course you’re referring to me. This is a blatant misrepresentation. Very close to, if not in fact, an outright lie. I have never proposed that I “could or did find hidden meaning in John 2:18-19 which ignores vss. 20-22”. I understand that vv. 18-19 is a metaphor the same way anyone else does, by learning it in vv. 20-22. (The second sentence in your above quote is simply incoherent.) The TRUTH of the matter is that I merely (and repeatedly) asked if your literal exegesis could, by its own rules of interpretation, discover the metaphor in vv. 18-19 without vv. 20-22.

In light of the fact that you could not bring yourself to truthfully answer a very simple question, I’ll answer it for you:

No, the grammatical-historical [literal] interpretive method is not capable by the application of its own rules, of discerning whether any passage of Scripture contains metaphoric content. As a man-made doctrine it focuses specifically on a single meaning approach to Bible language (as noted in various posts in this thread and solidly affirmed by DA) and only allows metaphoric meaning that is confirmed as such by the authors themselves by Bible personalities.

The Bible’s symbolic structure uses literal meanings as paints on a canvas (i.e., particulars as paints, within historical events as canvas) that produce wonderful new pictures [deeper, higher meaning]s. These meanings are orchestrated into the Bible by God. Modern literalism is poison. It slams the door shut on the picture-meanings God has painted in Scripture and demands that Christians do the same else they are “twisting” the words of the Bible. This appears to satisfy a significant measure of Mat 23:15.

The question you couldn’t face squarely has now been answered.

Now as to the question you asked earlier, if I was saying your dialog was not intellectually honest...reread the above and draw your own conclusions.

 

[RDKirk]

In Romans 3.2 Paul says the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

All the arguments for this method or that method of intrepretation are all based on western greek logic; which is NOT the logic system of the bible. It is way too linear and abstract. Hebraic logic is more relational and fluid.

Since the Jews are the ONLY ONES who still truly understand that logic system, it would make sense that God entrusted the scriptures and their intrepretation to them.

The point of considering the differences in Greek and Semitic epidemiological systems is important. How Semites in general and ancient Semites in particular evaluate a statement for its truth is significantly different from how a Greek would evaluate that statement for its truth...and we Westerners all use Greek epistemology.

 

[thesunisout]

the Holy Spirit wrote the word of God and only He can help us understand what it means.

 

[Unix]

Great conclusion! At some point, most methods get discarded for most passages in the Bible, and each method can be used on some occasion:

No, the grammatical-historical [literal] interpretive method is not capable by the application of its own rules, of discerning whether any passage of Scripture contains metaphoric content. As a man-made doctrine it focuses specifically on a single meaning approach to Bible language (as noted in various posts in this thread and solidly affirmed by DA) and only allows metaphoric meaning that is confirmed as such by the authors themselves by Bible personalities.

The Bible’s symbolic structure uses literal meanings as paints on a canvas (i.e., particulars as paints, within historical events as canvas) that produce wonderful new pictures [deeper, higher meaning]s. These meanings are orchestrated into the Bible by God. Modern literalism is poison. It slams the door shut on the picture-meanings God has painted in Scripture and demands that Christians do the same else they are “twisting” the words of the Bible. This appears to satisfy a significant measure of Mat 23:15.

 

[Dave-W]

Since neither Jesus nor any NT writer found esoteric hidden meanings when they quoted the OT, then neither should I..

WOW. all I can say is ... Wow.

Have you really read the NT? Mark's gospel? ALL KINDS of "esoteric hidden meanings" in there.