Literal Interpretation

In the past, I have written a few posts here against the theology of dispensationalism. In all of these posts, I have discussed what is wrong with their theology. Invariably, in a discussion with a dispensaionalist I get accused of “spiritualizing” scripture, that is not reading it literally. This accusation irritates me to no end. Is it true that there are some scriptures which I do not take absolutely literally? Of course, I certainly don't look for a rebuilt temple as described in Ezekiel, nor do I look for the Old Testament sacrifices to be started again. I don't see any reason to believe the thousand years of Revelation 20 is literal seeing as there is no literal dragon, no literal pit or abyss, which will be physically sealed, and no literal chain.

Yet I certainly believe that I interpret the Bible literally. The things described above which are not literal they in fact occur in visions. There is nothing to suggest that things seen in visions and dreams are to be taken literally. There are certainly other times in the Scriptures in which obvious metaphors are used. The Gospel of John is filled with them, for instance in John 15 Jesus calls himself the vine. He is of course not a literal vine, but the vine provides a picture of our relationship to Jesus.

Yet, the fact that they take non-literal things in a literal manner is not the irritating thing. What irritates me beyond reason is the passages that must be taken literally which are in fact spiritualized by most dispensationalists and nearly all evangelicals. The passages which most Christians seem to spiritualize are in fact much more important that the ones which I get accused of spiritualizing.

The first passage that comes to mind is Eph 2:1. It is a simple passage which says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Yet most Christians today do not believe this to be true, they see themselves as being able to co-operate with God to be saved. Certainly not the same as being dead. While on the topic of free will, the entire ninth chapter of Romans is often spiritualized, if not ignored completely.

Nearly any passage relating to the sacraments is not taken literally. Jesus saying “This is my body” can't possibly mean what it says. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? “ can't possibly be what Paul really meant to tell the Corinthians.

“Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” certainly doesn't mean that Baptism forgives sins. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” doesn't mean that Baptism has any power. Romans 6 sure does a good job explaining the symbolism of baptism doesn't it?

Why is it that we can be accused of spiritualizing the Scriptures by people who spiritualize, or even ignore, these essential sections of the Bible. These are scriptures that affect the daily lives of Christians throughout the world, and they are ripped apart by those who pride themselves on an absolutely literal interpretation of Scriptures. Its asinine.