Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 1

Whenever a discussion of the Bible is brought up, invariably the issue of interpretation will be mentioned.  Should we interpret the bible literally or not? How do we interpret the bible?

Clearly, those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take 

everything in the bible literally. Jesus is the “door” (John 10:7), but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches” (John 15:5), but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam, Gen. 2:7), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied (Mark 6:38-42), vivified corpses rising from graves (Matt. 27:52-53), etc. 

Let’s start with a definition. According to

the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” This is an application that we apply to most all documents.  Try reading the newspaper in a non-literal way and see how far that gets you.

But let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “love your neighbor as yourself” or “remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive, “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

You see, when critics agree with a point of a passage, they take the words of the Bible in their ordinary and customary sense. Unless, of course, the details of the text troubles them for some reason.  Then they cry out, “The Bible should not be taken literally.”  This is because they are in disagreement with the words.

“Jesus the only way of salvation?” No way. “Homosexuality a sin?” Oh, Please. “A loving God sending anyone to the eternal torture of Hell?” Not a chance.

Notice the objection with these teachings is not based on some ambiguity making alternate interpretations plausible, since the Scripture affirms these truths with the same clarity as “love your neighbor.” No, these verses simply offend. Suddenly, the critic becomes a skeptic and sniffs, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

So how are we to interpret the bible? More on this in Part 2.

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 2

Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

In the Law of Moses, for example, homosexual activity was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22-23 and 20:13). Therefore (the charge goes), any Christian who takes the Bible literally must advocate the execution of homosexuals, right?

Of course, the strategy with this move is obvious: If we don’t promote executing homosexuals, we can’t legitimately condemn their behavior, since both details are in the Bible. If we don’t take the Bible literally in the first case, we shouldn’t in the second case, either. That’s being inconsistent.

How do we escape the horns of this dilemma?

Let’s start by asking a series of questions:  When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally? If you’re not sure how to answer, let me ask it another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (Hawaii, in my case), do you think the legislators intend its citizens to understand the words of the regulations “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion”?

Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning and come up with their own imaginative meanings. The same would be true for the Mosaic Law. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.

But now, to be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? For that matter, aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children (cf. Deut. 21:18-21) and Sabbath-breakers (Exod. 31:14), both capital crimes under the Law?

The simple answer is no. Here’s why. Just because a biblical command is 

intended to be understood “literally,” does not mean it is intended to be applied “laterally,” that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

You say, “How can you get away by saying that?” 

I will show you in Part 3

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 3

Last time in Part 2, I ended with this statement:  

Just because a biblical command is intended to be understood “literally,” does not mean it is intended to be applied “laterally,” that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

Consider this: Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, in its ordinary sense. He had no reason to think otherwise. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies laterally to everyone else. We’re not obliged to cast nets into deep water just because Peter was told to do so.

Also consider this:  No matter what state you live in, the Hawaii legal codes are to be read literally, but don’t have lateral application to all states. They only apply to those in Hawaii.

In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy), like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads them. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey its precepts.

The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them, including the prohibition of and punishment for example of homosexuality. It was not the legal code God gave to us Gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words of the Mosaic Law are to be taken literally by those under the jurisdiction of that code, this does not mean that in our current circumstances we are governed by the details of the provisions of that Law.

Now I am in no suggesting that nothing written in the Mosaic Law is ever applicable to Christians or other Gentiles or that there are no universal moral obligations that humanity shares with the Jews of Moses’ time. No, I’m not saying that.

Though Moses gave legal statutes for Jews under the theocracy, that Law in some cases still reflects moral universals that have application for those outside the nation of Israel. Yes, we can glean wisdom and moral guidance from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, but there are limits.  

The question here is not whether we take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under that legal code. We are not. That law was meant for Jews living under a theocracy defined by their unique covenant with God. Simply because a directive appears in the Mosaic Law does not, by that fact alone, make it obligatory for those living outside of Israel’s commonwealth.

Americans are a mixture of peoples in a representative republic governed by a different set of decrees than the Jews under Moses. We are not obliged to obey everything that came down from Sinai. Just because it was commanded of the Nation of Israel does not necessarily mean it is commanded of us.

Having said, let’s go back to our original question:  When do we take the Bible literally?

More on this in Part 4

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 4

If I’m asked if I take the Bible literally, I would say I think that’s the wrong question to ask. I’d clarify by saying instead that I take the Bible in its ordinary sense, that is, I try to take the things recorded with the precision I think the writer intended.

To help clarify what I just said, I would counter with a question of my own:  “Do you read the sports page literally?”  You see, certain factual information is part of every story in that section. However, you wouldn’t take everything written in a literal way that ignores the conventions of the craft.

If the writer seems to be stating a fact—like a score, a location, a player’s name, a description of the plays leading to a touchdown—then I’d take that as literal. If he seems to be using a figure of speech, then I’d read his statement that way, figuratively, not literally.”

Sportswriters use a particular style to communicate the details of athletic contests clearly. They choose precise (and sometimes imaginative) words and phrases to convey a solid sense of the particulars in an entertaining way.

Sportswriters routinely use words like “annihilated,” “crushed,” “mangled,” “mutilated,” “stomped,” and “pounded,” yet no one speculates about literal meanings. Readers don’t scratch their heads wondering if cannibalism was involved when they read “the Waianae Seariders devoured the Pearl City Chargers.”

We recognize such constructions as figures of speech used to communicate in colorful ways events that actually (“literally”) took place. In fact, we never give those details a second thought because we understand how language works.

When a writer seems to be communicating facts in a straightforward fashion, we read them as such. When we encounter obvious figures of speech, we take them that way, too.

In the same way, this is exactly what I’m after when I say, “I take the Bible in its ordinary sense.”  Indeed, misinterpretation is always possible. Conjuring up some meaning that has little to do with the words the writer used, though, is not a legitimate alternative.  Nevertheless, you begin with the mindset that “I am going to read this passage in its ordinary sense, but when I come across figures of speech that demands a second thought, I need to investigate further.

All metaphors (or other forms of figurative writing) rely first on literal definitions before they can be of any use as figures of speech.  No word is a metaphor in itself, since words cannot be used metaphorically unless they’re embedded in a context. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask of a solitary word, “Is the word meant literally?” because the word standing on its own gives no indication.

Remember that metaphors are always meant to clarify, not obscure.

There’s a sense in which figurative speech drives an author’s meaning home in ways that words taken in the ordinary way could never do. “All good allegory,” C.S. Lewis notes, “exists not to hide, but to reveal, to make the inner world more palpable by giving it an (imagined) concrete embodiment.”

Figurative speech communicates literal truth in a more precise and powerful way than ordinary language can on its own. The strictly literal comment, “Honey, your presence makes me feel good today” doesn’t pack the punch that perhaps, “Honey, you presence is like sunshine beaming through the window of my heart,” provides.

When reading the Bible, here is a rule of thumb to always keep before you: NEVER read just one bible verse. Always read a paragraph of the Bible – at least!  Meaning flows from the top down, from the larger context to the smaller.   Thus, the key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

End of Series