Toward a More Consistently Literal Hermeneutic

By Robb Brunansky

Published February 25, 2025

Over the centuries of Bible interpretation, many unfortunate and unhelpful methods of interpretation have been used, with disastrous results. For example, some people use numerology to interpret Scripture. Numerology sees the biblical text as a numerical puzzle to be solved. Rather than interpreting the text in its grammatical, historical, theological context, the words are translated into numbers, and these numbers are put together to arrive at some kind of secret, hidden code. Using numerology essentially discards the text of Scripture itself, seeing it as nothing more than a secret code to crack.

In the early church, the church father Origen advanced a spiritual (sometimes called allegorical) method of interpreting Scripture. His method was followed and expanded by later interpreters, such as Augustine of Hippo. The spiritual interpretation of Scripture looks for a deeper meaning behind the words themselves. For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, Jesus tells the story of a man who was robbed while traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, and how a Samaritan cared for him and ensured his survival. The spiritual method of interpretation takes a parable like this and sees something “spiritual” behind the story, such that the inn is a symbol for the church, the wine represents the blood of Christ, and so on. While the text has a clear contextual meaning, the spiritual interpretation asserts this contextual meaning is ultimately secondary to the most important meaning, which is spiritual or allegorical.

The problem with the spiritual method of interpretation is that it leaves the interpreter with no controls over ascertaining the validity of a given interpretation. People, places, events, and things in Scripture can mean almost anything, and who is to say what they can and can’t mean? The context of the original audience is ignored. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, everyone agrees that the lawyer to whom Jesus spoke this parable would have had no concept of the New Testament church. He never would have heard the parable and concluded that the inn must be a symbol for the church. We have no way of verifying if this interpretation is correct or if the inn really is a symbol for heaven or the new creation. Because of its subjectivity, the spiritual method of interpretation is unhelpful and should be rejected by serious students of Scripture.

One of the great principles of the Reformation was the principle of literal interpretation. John Calvin, for example, asserted that the correct way to handle Scripture was to interpret it literally and all else were “deadly corruptions.” In his commentary on Galatians, Calvin wrote, “Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one (verum sensum scripturae, qui germanus est et simplex), and let us embrace and hold it resolutely. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the literal sense (a literali sensu).” The Reformation was in large part the result of setting aside former methods of interpretation and returning to a literal hermeneutic.

This return to literal hermeneutics was not without difficulties, for the question arose as to the nature of literal interpretation. The Bible clearly uses symbols and metaphors and is not to be taken literally in every instance.

Psalm 2:3 speaks of the kings of the earth and the rulers desiring to tear off the chains God has put on them. It is evident that God has not put literal, physical chains on these human rulers. The psalmist is speaking metaphorically to make a powerful point.

In Galatians 4, Paul contrasted the Jerusalem above with the “present Jerusalem” (4:25) and noted these corresponded “allegorically” (4:24) to Sarah and Hagar. While most scholars are agreed that Paul is not using the word allegory as we often use it today, they also agree that Paul is not interpreting the account of Sarah and Hagar in a strictly literal manner, either.

One notorious text interpreters have grappled with over the centuries is Matthew 2:15, where Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 and says that Jesus’ return from Egypt to Israel fulfilled Hosea’s words. In the context of Hosea, a strictly literal interpretation would seem to lead to the conclusion that Hosea is speaking of Israel as a nation being led by the Lord out of Egyptian bondage during the Exodus. In what sense does Jesus moving from Egypt to Israel fulfill Hosea 11:1? Is Matthew interpreting that passage literally, figuratively, metaphorically, symbolically, typologically, allegorically, or what? And the greater question for contemporary interpreters is this: Is what Matthew does with Hosea 11:1 a valid interpretive method for Christians today?

These examples demonstrate the challenges of literal hermeneutics. No one can take everything the Bible says literally, if by that is meant the Bible never uses symbols, figurative language, or typology. Inevitably, every interpreter collides with something in Scripture that must be taken in a way that might not be construed as strictly literal.

For example, John MacArthur, who has often spoken of literal hermeneutics and his commitment to a grammatical-historical exegesis, writes in his commentary on Galatians 3:29, “Not all the physical seed of Abraham will receive the promises of salvation (Rom. 9:6–11), but many who are not physical seed of Abraham will receive them by coming to God by faith as he did, thereby becoming his spiritual offspring.” Galatians 3:29 says, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” MacArthur makes a distinction in his commentary between the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham, but Paul does not say that those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s spiritual descendants, nor does MacArthur explain what it means to be a spiritual descendant. Is a spiritual descendant a literal descendant? Should we interpret Galatians 3:29 literally, or are we justified for theological reasons to interpret it spiritually? These are significant questions, and anyone committed to a literal hermeneutic, as all Bible students should be, needs to wrestle with them.

To promote greater understanding of how literal hermeneutics function, I want to suggest that the common distinction between literal and spiritual interpretation is unhelpful and inadequate to understand rightly how to interpret the Bible. Rather than distinguishing between literal and spiritual, interpreters should distinguish between literal and figurative, and between physical and spiritual. These distinctions get at the heart of what is at stake in hermeneutical debates among those who all claim to hold to hail from the Protestant Reformed tradition of literal interpretation.

When we consider the first distinction – literal and figurative – we can untangle with greater precision what we are wrestling with in a given text. For example, in Revelation 20:4-6, the question is not whether the thousand years speaks of something literal or spiritual but whether John is speaking literally or figuratively. Clearly, John intends for readers to understand some historical time period in these verses, but does he use the number one thousand as a literal number or as a symbolic number? Whatever conclusion the interpreter arrives at should be grounded in rigorous grammatical-historical exegesis that takes into account the entirety of divine revelation.

The second distinction – physical and spiritual – must recognize that both realities are literal. Spiritual beings literally exist, such as angels and demons. Heaven is a spiritual dimension that literally exists. God is Spirit, and He is a literal, trinitarian Being. Spiritual realities must not be equated with non-literal interpretation when those realities are literal realities.

One example might help to illustrate the point. In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of God. If we ask whether this is a literal or spiritual temple, we ask the wrong question. Instead, we need to ask two questions. Is Paul using the word “temple” literally or figuratively? And is Paul speaking of a physical or spiritual temple?

Both of these questions must be settled on grammatical-historical exegetical grounds. It is possible that “temple” is figurative, given that Paul is known to use illustrations and symbolic language in his writings, but it is also possible that he is using it literally, speaking of an actual temple, not of a temple as a symbol of something else. For the sake of argument, let’s assume he is speaking of a literal temple. Is this literal temple a physical structure or a spiritual structure? Keeping in mind that spiritual realities are literal, non-physical realities, we can interpret the temple in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 as a literal, spiritual temple without allegorizing, spiritualizing, or otherwise arbitrarily treating the text as a wax nose to be shaped however we want.

On the other hand, some interpret Paul to be saying the church is like a temple because the Spirit indwells the church. Such an interpretation takes “temple” metaphorically (“the church is like a temple”) to point to a spiritual (i.e., non-physical) reality. This non-literal interpretation points to the literal reality that the church is the dwelling place of the Spirit of God. Therefore, although the interpretation is non-literal, it qualifies as taking the passage literally because it points to a literal reality that can (possibly) substantiated from the text itself.

Which of these interpretations is correct? Regardless of how someone answers that question, this process enables us to move beyond one side accusing the other of violating a literal hermeneutic. Too often these kinds of aspersions are used to circumvent genuine debate and discussion about how to interpret the Bible. When we don’t engage these arguments, our exegesis is not enhanced but impoverished.

These questions enable us to move beyond traditional categories that stifle dialog among believers. We need to think in terms of literal versus figurative and physical versus spiritual. When we approach interpretation using these categories, our exegesis will be enriched because we ask the right questions and wrestle with the real issues present in the text of Scripture.