Interpreting the Bible: Literal vs. Figurative Language I. The Need for Foundation A. There was a time in Greece 400 years before the birth of Jesus when the society of Athens valued speaking above all else B. It did not matter if you were right or wrong; what mattered was how you spoke and how well you could twist words and meanings to support your arguments 1. the age of the sophists 2. they were completely unconcerned with "right" and "wrong;" they exploited language and other things C. Then came Aristotle and he wrote four works outlining in great detail the laws of logic and how anything can be proven by deduction D. Once this great work was done, the process of wrangling about words essentially ceased 1. Aristotle recognized that a foundation was needed 2. He built that foundation with his works on logic E. The same need for foundation is necessary with interpretation of the Bible 1. Our problem is not as much with word wrangling (although that does occur) but more so with means of interpretation, specifically the literal or figurative nature of passages 2. This all falls under the heading of "hermeneutics," the rules by which we interpret the Bible 3. Many of these things you do unconsciously without thinking about it 4. Since, however, there are many who do not properly interpret these things, it is profitable for us to confirm that our foundations are secure (1 Corinthians 3:11) F. Let us examine the differences and recognition of literal and figurative language. II. Definitions A. First we must define our terms. B. Literal (Webster's): "According to the letter; primitive; real; not figurative or metaphorical; as the literal meaning of a phrase; Following the letter or exact words; not free; as a literal translation. 1. "Literal," therefore, is taking the reading at its face value. 2. John 11:35: Jesus wept. a. we see this verse and accept the fact that Jesus, in the flesh, cried tears on behalf of Lazarus. b. we do not attempt to spiritualize this or make it figurative C. Figurative (Webster's): "Representing something else; representing by resemblance; typical; Representing by resemblance; not literal or direct. A figurative expression, is one in which the words are used in a sense different from that in which they are ordinarily used as; Abounding with figures of speech; as a description highly figurative. 1. Figurative, therefore, is not literal; it represents something 2. 1 Corinthians 10:4: Is Christ literally a rock? No; we all recognize that the rock represents Jesus D. The term "figurative," however, is very broad; let us look at some more specific kinds of figurative language E. Simile (Webster's): "In rhetoric, similitude; a comparison of two thing which, however different in other respects, have some strong point or points of resemblance; by which comparison, the character or qualities of a thing are illustrated or presented in an impressive light." 1. Therefore, a simile is a comparison between two events or things 2. Jesus' parables are all similes, like Matthew 13:45-46: parable of the pearl of great price 3. Is the Kingdom of Heaven literally a high-quality pearl? No; we know that Jesus is comparing the Kingdom of Heaven to a pearl which a man will give up all he has to own F. Metaphor (Webster's): "A short similitude; a similitude reduced to a single word; or a word expressing similitude without the signs of comparison." 1. A metaphor is like a simile but is not a comparison but instead becomes the full representation of the object. 2. Metaphors work in source and target domains-- we understand a target in terms of the source 3. Example: Matthew 13:1-8: source domain is farming and planting seed, target domain is preaching the Gospel and the types of people who hear G. Parable (Webster's): A fable or allegorical relation or representation of something real in life or nature, from which a moral is drawn for instruction 1. Jesus is famous for His use of parables: true-to-life stories designed to present spiritual truth 2. Consider the parable of the sower above H. Allegory (Webster's): A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker, by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. 1. Allegories take an actual event and use it to metaphorically describe something else 2. Example: Galatians 4:22-31, allegory of Sarah and Hagar I. Symbol (Webster's): "The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things; An emblem or representation of something else; etc." 1. A symbol is very similar to a metaphor, but differs in the sense that a symbol is generally a physical reminder of an abstract concept 2. The Lord's Supper: the bread is the symbol of the Lord's Body, and the fruit of the vine the symbol of the Lord's Blood 3. They are not literally the body and blood, they are not compared to the body or blood, and we have the physical bread and fruit of the vine to remind us of that body and blood J. Metonymy/synecdoche: substituting whole for part or part for whole 1. "drink the cup": metonymy referring to contents of cup 2. "the people say": synecdoche for what part of people say K. Hyperbole: exaggeration 1. Matthew 16:26-- can anyone have the whole world? L. These are the major forms of figurative language; let us now apply these things III. Application in Interpretation A. Now that we have seen what literal and figurative language is, how shall we go about determining what is literal and what is figurative? B. We have guidelines that we may use to determine these very things; they are the rules of hermeneutics. C. Basic principle: interpret everything literally unless: (a) such a reading is nonsensical; (b) a literal interpretation would cause a contradiction with another truth in the Bible; (c) the context does not allow for a literal interpretation. D. If (a), (b), and/or (c) exist, we may interpret the material in a figurative manner. E. Let us examine these three causes for figurative interpretation F. (A): Nonsensical reading 1. This is somewhat subjective, but, as an example, John 4:10-11. 2. Jesus speaks to the woman at the well about "living water." Does the idea of "living" water vs. "dead" water make any sense? No. Therefore we look at the verse figuratively 3. We then see that Jesus compares the physical water that can only temporarily nourish the body and speaks to the woman about the "living water," the truth of the Gospel, and how it refreshes always. 4. We must be diligent about properly interpreting material that seems to be nonsensical in a literal fashion lest our idea of nonsensical is not the same as God's 5. This principle will often also be at work with either (B) or (C), but even when alone it is necessary to understand G. (B) Contradictions 1. We must judge rightly with this principle—we must rightly divide the literal from the figurative—but this principle is the one least used and most necessary 2. Acts 2:16-21; mostly a quotation of Joel 2:28-32 3. Peter says that "this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel…" and then goes on to quote about the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood any many such things 4. There is no evidence that any of these signs literally occurred; what do we do then? 5. We must analyze what is literal and what is not 6. Peter speaks literally in verse 16; we know that he is quoting prophecy, and with (C), we can see that prophecy will often not be literal but in fact figurative 7. And this is the case here; Peter is right in saying that these things occurred on the day of Pentecost; we need to try to work to understand what Joel meant by his signs as opposed to saying that the signs have not yet occurred and causing contradiction as the premillennialists do H. (C) Context 1. While context is not always a sure guide—in the middle of letter full of material interpreted literally we may find figurative language, and in the midst of visions and prophecies we may find literally true material—contexts can often guide us to proper understandings. 2. Many times, for instance, contradictions will arise between Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9-10, and the book of Revelation 3. When we look at context, we see that most of the book of Revelation is a vision, and Paul's lesson to the Athenians and Peter's letter do not require a figurative context 4. In our interpretations, therefore, we must remember that visions and prophecies more often than not speak in figurative language, using similes, metaphors, and symbols to point to what will occur without literally saying what shall occur 5. Likewise, while sometimes figurative language is used, most of the books of Acts and the Epistles are generally literal material I. Thus we see the means of interpretation of language IV. Conclusion 1. If we are going to be found as pleasing servants of God, we must have the proper foundation built on Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11) 2. That foundation, as with Aristotle in Greece, must be made with the proper guidelines and understandings so that all is understandable and mutually agreed upon 3. It is manifestly evident that the Bible speaks to us both in literal, direct ways, and also figurative, less-direct, but evocative ways 4. We must remember to always seek to interpret literally unless doing so makes the text nonsensical, in disharmony with other texts, or if the context leans toward a figurative understanding 5. We may accept as a literal truth that Jesus Christ died for our sins that we may have salvation through His blood 6. If we can do anything for anyone to help them live in obedience to God, please let us do so as we stand and sing