Encountering the Bible...literally

A few weeks ago I was asked point blank by a church member, “Do you take the Bible literally?” While she did not intend it to be so, this is a loaded question. By saying “yes” you must then do everything written therein literally. By saying “no” you are impinging upon the reliability and authority of the Bible. Of course, anyone involved in such a discussion knows the matter is far more complicated than those two options.


For example, what do we mean by “literal”? Do we mean “historically literal”—that what the Bible purports to have happened actually happened in that way? This approach assumes a few things: that the authors understood history writing as we do and that they had the materials in hand to accomplish such a feat.

Contrary to these assumptions, historiography (how history is written) is a modern construct and applying it to ancient writers is anachronistic and unfair to their intentions. Biblical writers were not writing an unbiased history of what occurred. Rather, it is a theologized history—that is, a history from the viewpoint of a faithful people reflecting upon a saving God.

Even if they were writing with unbiased intent, they did not have the primary materials to accurately convey historical events. Many things described in the Bible were reconstructed from oral transmission since they were not a written culture and did not write things down.

Thus we should not be surprised when there are tensions (or to put it more boldly, “contradictions”) in the text. They were not concerned with transmitting events exactly as they happened. Rather, they incorporated historically based events into their overarching themes and shaped them into a coherent whole. A brief look at the Synoptic gospels belies such a position. When Matthew says that Jesus taught on a mountain (Matt. 5:1) and Luke says he “came down and taught on a level place” (Luke 6:20), is one of them just wrong? No, it means there is more to each author’s presentation than meets the eye and it calls for a little investigation.

All of this is to say, we should be wary to take the Bible as “historically literal” because we open ourselves to criticism when a Biblical account seems to be contradicted by other “histories.” What we can say is that the Bible is based in history and contains some historical accounts, but at the end of the day the authors are far more concerned with the theological message than the historical accuracy.


Well if we don’t mean “historically literal” perhaps we mean “proscriptionally literal”. That is, when the Bible makes a command, we take it literally and do it—no questions asked. On the one hand, such a literal view has its appeal. It removes any interpretation from our part and places it firmly in God’s hands. There is no need to justify our actions because God has the final authority.

The problem with this literal view is that it does not account for all the laws in the Bible. What do we do with the Old Testament laws? Unfortunately, many too easily dismiss Old Testament laws by saying we live under the New Covenant. Also, what do we do with cultural laws—that is, laws whose context can be traced to a specific time and place but whose impact is lost on a different, modern culture? A most obvious example is Paul’s command for women to dress modestly, which excludes braided hair, gold jewelry or pearls (1 Tim. 2:9). Yet even the most staunch advocate for literal adherence to the laws would probably concede that this command was culturally focused and described modern day prostitutes. Yet, literally, women should not wear jewelry or braid their hair. But such an understanding would seem to be ludicrous by today’s standards. Or, more graphically, when Jesus recommends gouging out your eye or cutting off your hand to avoid sin (Matt 5:29-30), who, except the most ascetic among us, would literally follow such a command?


Hopefully my point is clear—patently accepting biblical stories and laws as literal is not a correct appropriation of Scripture. This approach does not take into account genre, metaphor, hyperbole, parables, etc. Perhaps more egregious is that this approach does not consider authorial intent. Though we may never know exactly what an author was thinking, we can generally deduce a probable theological theme. Thus, a literal interpretation is not always a correct one.

By saying that I don’t always take the Bible literally should in no way imply that it is not the main source of truth that God has revealed to humanity. The Bible is true and does not need to hold up under factual and verifiable scrutiny. It reveals God’s relationship with God’s creation and is not a handbook of World, Israelite, or Christian history. It is a revelation of God's saving works and not a handbook of moral or ethical laws.


To conclude, correctly understanding Scripture requires a Spirit of wisdom coupled with a proper understanding of context and background. And each new generation needs to allow the Bible to speak anew to the needs of the community. May we take the Bible seriously, even if we don’t always take it literally.