To read a text literally means to read it according to the letter, and then one realizes that each letter makes up words, which make up sentences, which make up paragraphs, which make up books.

If you are like me, you might have noticed recently the up-tick in the use of the word “literal” and “literally” to emphasize that what one is saying is really meant. “I literally could not stand it any longer,” and “She literally cried tears of joy.”

To take a more extreme example, a politician recently said on a winter’s day, “There were 400 people outside literally freezing to death,” when in fact it that particular group simply found it extremely cold, and were alive to tell about it afterwards.

One of my theories is that the inflated use of “literally” follows on the decades-long use of the ubiquitous modifier “like.” It seems at times that every other sentence is sprinkled with this word that detracts from a direct statement and sentiment, usually banal and frivolous in many cases: “That was like horrifying when they painted my nails the wrong tone of pink.” and “That profile pic is like the most hilarious thing I’ve ever seen.”

Given this sort of verbiage, there must eventually be some way to communicate that “Yes, I am serious about what I am saying.” Perhaps because in our postmodern world language has become so playful and elastic, when we want to queue others to understand “this is no joke.” we are forced to depend upon qualifiers such as “literally.”

One can imagine that in one apocryphal version of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story, the last time he cried it he was forced to say “But there literally is a wolf here.” and he still wasn’t believed.

Applied to the way we understand Scripture, another contemporary use of the term “literal” could also use some refinement. For example, one regularly hears Dispensational critics remark that Reformed interpretation of prophecies are not “literal” readings. In Isaiah 54:2 Israel is told to “Enlarge the place of your tent” to make room for the Gentiles. The fulfillment of this, we are told, cannot take place until there is actually a tent (read: temple?) big enough to hold the worldwide church. Not even the grand temple of Ezekiel 40-47 (as grandiose as it is) would be capable of this.

The apostles, however, see prophecy really and truly fulfilled in the new covenant, as in Acts 15:16 when James quotes the prophecy of Amos 9 fulfilled in their sight, as the Gentiles are enfolded into God’s congregation: “After this I will return and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen….” The church of Christ fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 54 and Amos 9.

I am sure those present at the Council of Jerusalem would be baffled if told, “But you’re not reading that text literally.” Methinks their response might be along the lines of, “Of course it’s literally true; it’s according to the (inspired) letter of the Word.”

The bifurcation made today between “literal” and “spiritual” fails to account for the reality that the Spirit inspired not only the writers but the very words (read: letters) of the Bible.

To read a text literally means to read it according to the letter, and then one realizes that each letter makes up words, which make up sentences, which make up paragraphs, which make up books. Because all language involves at some level metaphor, analogy, figure of speech, any responsible exegesis which seeks to glean the literal meaning must deal sensitively and carefully with all these elements.

A word is not like a number, which can have a “stand alone” value; every piece of a text – indeed the whole text itself – has a context, and a sound hermeneutic (method of interpretation) constantly connects the part to the whole, and the whole to the part.

A truly “literal” reading of any text, Scripture included, accounts for the organic character of human language. All speech and writing is embedded and wedded to the particulars of time, place, custom, and action. The remarkable fact of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is that the Spirit works through (and not around) the medium of human language to communicate God’s Word and works.

In short, it’s not that there is a literal interpretation on the one hand, and a spiritual interpretation on the other. The divine intention can only be understood as we engage the human author’s words: there is no “going behind” the language of the Bible to a secret symbolic code that contains Scripture’s true meaning. And when God speaks, make no mistake: He always tells the truth (Titus 1:2). Literally.
_______________
Ken Montgomery is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, currently serving as Associate Pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Dayton, Ohio