Sam Waldron is writing about John MacArthurs literal hermeneutic to show that Biblical Christians do believe in a literal hermeneutic. I love the comrade that is show by Sam and the fact that both John MacArthur and Sam Waldron are closer in their stated understanding of hermeneutics that one may think. I appreciate both of these men of God and have learn much from them.
The issue between dispensationalists and covenantentalists is one of the consistent application of a literal hermeneutic. The real question we all need to ask is that do we interpret all literature alike or are there rules of interpretations with different genres of literature? Do you interpret poetry like you do a historical narrative?
When MacArthur was arguing for literal interpretation of all Scripture, he cited a study (Steven Boyd, “The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story,” Impact # 377 (November, 2004), i-iv) that compared Hebrew poetry to Genesis 1-3 to show that one should interpret day in its most plane literal sense – a 24 hour day – since it was proven to be prose or historical narrative. By citing that study he admitted that the rules for interpreting poetry are not the same as the rules of interpreting Historical narrative (or prose). His unstated admission was that if Genesis 1-3 is poetry then one could interpret it by a different set of rules that might support a day/age theory of creation. Thus it is literal to interpret different literary genre by a different set of rules consistent with the authorial intent of the passage.
It is a literal interpretation to use the rules of literary–grammatical-historical hermeneutics.
John MacArthur knows that in the Bible there are poetic, symbolic, parabolic, and apocalyptic passages that should and must be interpreted poetically, symbolically, parabolically, and apocalyptically—not as prosaic language or historical narrative. MacArthur believes, I think, that interpreting such passages in such ways is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I will grant him his definition of literal interpretation.
Sam Waldron’s conclusion about the literary context for interpretation good and better than I can say it.
The Bible must always be interpreted according to its literary genre. I would argue that interpreting the Bible according to its literary genre is not necessarily contrary to “literal” interpretation. That is to say, a “literal” kind of hermeneutics does not need to deny that there are different literary genres in the Bible, some more or less prosaic or literal and others more or less symbolic or poetic. Define literal interpretation as simply taking these passages as they are intended by God. Define literal interpretation simply as historical-grammatical interpretation. If this is the way you define literal interpretation, then taking into account the literary genre of the passage supplements and is consistent with literal interpretation and does not contradict it. Whatever God intends to say through the different literary genres contained in the Bible we take as the literal truth. We do not search for a hidden meaning behind the literal truth conveyed through the historical narrative or poetic song or apocalyptic vision.