Literal or Allegorical?

After writing a piece (again, not meant to be exhaustive or systematic, just anecdotal) on why I hold to Covenant Theology, a good friend of mine (Van Edwards) commented, “So when I read this, should I interpret it as a literal allegory or allegorically literal?” I’m sure it was tongue-in-cheek. But it prompted me in just as much fun to write a little prod back. However, I thought I’d write a bit more, mostly for myself, but if it can help to carry a dialogue along with anyone else, then good!
I think what Van is getting at in his comment is, if I consent that some Scripture should be understood allegorically, then how do I know what Scripture that is, and what Scripture that is not. However, my jab back to him and my thought now is, “Isn’t that a fair question for the Dispensationalist as well?” First, I have not found a Covenant Theologian (in my circles…namely, conservative) that would not hold to the view that Scripture should be interpreted literally where possible. That is to say, unless there is a reason to interpret it non-literally, then it should be understood literally. The Dispensationalists that I’ve been under and those whose books I’ve read say the same thing. The difference between both groups is what Scripture is to be understood literally.

From my Covenantal viewpoint, I come to prophecy not for a detailed roadmap, but for hope (Isa. 40:1; Luke 21:28; 1 Thess. 4:18, 5:11). When I consider many of the prophecies in the Old Testament that speak to the coming Messiah, I see some details revealed (that were literally fulfilled, although the readers didn’t get it any more than Jesus’ contemporaries…even after He pointed them out) that point to how Jesus came, lived and died. However, most of the prophecy was speaking to give God’s people hope, and to point them to the object of their faith. If we see through a glass dimly, they were looking through a really, really dim glass. We look back at OT prophecy about the Messiah, and say, “It’s so clear!” Now when we consider the return of Christ, we are in their shoes. But we don’t have a detailed roadmap (in my opinion). Rather we have an overview of the overall movement.

Other than prophecy, we (Covenant Theologians) and Dispensationalists share much in common. This is why our libraries look so similar and we often attend the same conferences. It really comes down to how we approach prophetical Scripture, and more specifically who is/are God’s people(s) and what will the end look like. Dispensationalists like to say it is hermeneutics. They accuse Covenantal folks of interpreting Scripture allegorically. But again, find a conservative CT who treats any/all Scripture allegorically. I haven’t found one. Rather, I’ve found only those who come to certain types of Biblical writing (literary types) with allegorical glasses (such as poetry).

So is it hermeneutics or the system of theology that triumphs the Dispensational cause? The ones who I’ve talked with over the years argued they, as Dispensationalists, don’t teach theology. They teach Scripture. And they do so literally. Consistently literally. But this never seemed right to me. First, what bothered me about this was logic. As I grew older I came to realize that no one comes to anything they study without predispositions toward a system of understanding. This same argument is one we use for those trying to prove evolution. They come to every “scientific” study they conduct with a predisposition toward their system of “evolutionism.” We all do this. The Dispensationalist argues that his system is simply the Bible, and the literal interpretation of that. Okay then, that’s your system. But then can your system triumph the actual meaning of the text? I say, from logic alone, “yes!” For example, when Christ said at the Last Supper, “This is my body,” was it literally body or literally bread? Now I’m not trying to stir up a debate here of Lutheran type. My point is, what did Christ literally mean and what does it literally mean for us? Most Dispensationalists say communion (the Lord’s Supper) is a memorial. It’s not literally Christ’s flesh. To use a prophetic example, what about Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones? What about when Jeremiah said he would remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh? (that was Jeremiah wasn’t it…it’s getting late!) Even Darby stated that John 14:18 spoke of an invisible coming of the Holy Spirit (not visible or “literal”).

Recently, I listened to a speech by John MacArthur (entitled, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist”). In this talk, he laid out the premise that if your hermeneutic is correct, they you’ll get Israel right, and if you get
Israel right then you’ll get eschatology right (can’t remember if that is exact, or even the right order, but it’s close I believe). But he spoke this in defense of premillennialism. I know several Covenantal guys who are historical premillennialists. How did they get to the “right” conclusion with the wrong hermeneutic (I’m assuming he’d consider historic premillennialism as correct because he didn’t differentiate between Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic)? If both CT and Disp. folks can come to the same eschatology, then it’s not their getting
Israel “right” or their hermeneutic. Rather, each system allows one to come to premillennialism. This means that the two hermeneutics aren’t the driving force but rather the theological systems themselves. Dispensationalism does not allow one to come to Amillennialism (which he was critiquing). Covenant Theology allows one to come to any of the three major views. So, I would argue, Dispensationalism drives one to both a separate view of
Israel and the Church and to Dispensational Premillennialism. I haven’t met or read a Dispensationalist who will concede this, but I am convinced of it both from their writing and from my own experience.
The second issue that has bothered me about the Dispensationalists’ claim to interpret Scripture consistently literally (the first was logic) is from Scripture itself. As I have pointed out above, there are a number of passages that Dispensationalists do not interpret literally. I will cite only one (since I have pointed out others above and even more are readily available in writings by scholars who merit more attention than my own ramblings). I refer to Psalm 22. In this psalm, there are portions that were literally fulfilled. Christ did cry out, “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Soldiers did cast lots for his clothing. But Christ is not a worm (v. 6), nor did bulls surround him (v. 12), nor dogs (v. 16), nor was He afraid of the mouth of an actual lion (v. 21). My point here is that the audience of that day would not have known what portion of that prophetic psalm was to be viewed literally and what was to be viewed allegorically. A point was simply that the Messiah would suffer and die. His death would be one in innocence. This passage doesn’t give a detailed roadmap (although we understand the details in hindsight, but those that were literally fulfilled and those that were allegorical).

So while the Dispensationalist is driven by a theological system of God working inconsistently through history, Covenant Theologians are driven by a system of one single unified movement of God unfolded in history. It is the latter that I hold to. I admit I am no less objective (nor more) than the Dispensationalist when it comes to hermeneutics. Rather, we are both influenced and sometimes driven by our theological system. And so to answer my friend Van, interpret what I am saying literally, unless you deem that it must be taken allegorically! :-)