1. Literal interpretation:
The plain, normal, or natural meaning, intent, or sense of words. When I was in seminary, this meant Israel means Israel and church means church. Though this is somewhat of a simplistic account of what I was taught, in essence it is accurate.

2. This view of literal interpretation (what I prefer to call literalistic) also carries with it the view that biblical texts have a single meaning, the meaning the human author consciously intended his original, historically-conditioned audience to understand.

3. This may sound good at first sight, however, as we will see, it is fraught with Enlightenment assumptions. For example, can interpreters get into the consciousness of the human author or the consciousness of his original, historically-conditioned audience? Obviously not.

4. The only thing we have is the human author’s text, and background information outside of Scripture that is always fallible, and sometimes very poorly attested. Another question for those who hold this view of literal interpretation is this:

5. Can God intend more by a text than the human author and/or the original, historically-conditioned recipients understood? That question seems, on face value, to demand a no answer. I will seek to answer it later.

6. For now, consider the Bible’s first use of the word translated “God” in Genesis 1:1. What is meant by that term? Some form of abstract theism—a form of theism not indicating any concrete reality or an actual substance? Or, does this term indicate something more than that?

7. And if it does, what more is being indicated by it? Is there a hint at what we call the doctrine of the Trinity here? If there is, did Moses and his original, historically-conditioned audience know that? Can we even answer this question?

8. Do we really want to restrict its meaning to what the human author consciously intended his original, historically-conditioned audience to understand? What about Genesis 1:26? “Let us make man in Our image”? Is there more than one Jehovah?

9. Are there creating creatures, co-creating with God? Is there a hint at what we call the doctrine of the Trinity here? If there is, did Moses and his original, historically-conditioned audience know that? Can we even answer this question?

10. And what about Jonah 1:17, “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” Was Jonah a type of Christ?

11. If so, and I think he was (more on this later), would the author and the original, historically-conditioned recipients have concluded that? Can we even answer this question?

12. Do we really want to restrict its meaning to what the human author consciously intended his original, historically-conditioned audience to understand?

13. Some who advocate this strict view of literal interpretation also hold that the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, in terms of its interpretive method as Christ is related to the Old Testament, is not to be followed by subsequent interpreters.

14. That is the view I was taught while attending seminary. I will critique that view in the course on biblical theology.
It is crucial that we distinguish between literal and literalistic.

15. Literal refers to the intent of the author, and the most important author of Scripture is God. Literalistic refers to the faulty method of some readers limiting the meaning of scriptural texts to that which they think the human author consciously intended his original, ...

16. ...historically-conditioned audience 2understand. (It should become clear in subsequent discussion why I assert that the meaning of scriptural texts ought not to be limited2what the human author consciously intended his original, historically-conditioned audience2understand.)