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.

Modern Theologians

I studied Erasmus in class last week. He was known especially for his Latin translation of the Bible in 1516, the first new Latin version of the bible since the Vulgate (produced by Jerome in the fourth century CE). Erasmus’s Paraclesis, the preface to his edition, calls for the translation of the Bible into all vernacular languages so that humble plowmen, farmers, weavers, and “even the lowliest women” could read or recite the Bible in their native dialect.

Erasmus lived during the Reformation and one issue of the time was that of various clerical abuses in the Church. Thus his call to make the scriptures available and accessible to the unlearned was a call to dispense with the control that the clergy had over the laypeople.

The following excerpt from his Paraclesis represents a wonderful ideal of all of God’s people reading, interpreting, and living out the tenants of the Bible. It also serves as a warning and reminder to me, as one seeking to become a “professional theologian” not to take myself too seriously. More than that, Erasmus implores us to pursue God, not just information about God.

“For I fear that one may find among the theologians men who are far removed from the title they bear, that is, men who discuss earthly matters, not divine, and that among the monks who profess the poverty of Christ and the contempt of the world you may find something more than worldliness. To me he is truly a theologian who teaches not by skill with intricate syllogisms but by a disposition of mind, by the very expression and the eyes, by his very life that riches should be disdained, that the Christian should not put his trust in the supports of this world but must rely entirely on heaven, that a wrong should not be avenged, that a good should be wished for those wishing ill, that we should deserve well of those deserving ill, that all good men should be loved and cherished equally as members of the same body...And if anyone under the inspiration of the spirit of Christ preaches this kind of doctrine, inculcates it, exhorts, incites, and encourages men to it, he indeed is truly a theologian, even if he should be a common laborer or weaver. And if anyone exemplifies this doctrine in his life itself, he is in fact a great doctor. Another, perhaps, even a non-Christian, may discuss more subtly how the angels understand, but to persuade us to lead here an angelic life, free from every stain, this indeed is the duty of the Christian theologian.”

Interpretive Lens

I have a paper due this week and so don’t have the necessary time to put into a thoughtful entry. But, I thought I would put some questions out there to hear from you as I am thinking about an entry down the road. The questions have to do with interpretation of God’s Word (and yes, I do believe that it is inspired by God).

How does Scripture function so that there is a normative (agreed upon) understanding, thus allowing Christians to assess the validity of varying interpretations?
i.e. what are you principles of interpretation?
How do you determine what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?
What assumptions to you make about the text without even realizing it?

Look forward to hearing your introspection.

Reading Scripture

I wrote this as a comment on Troy's blog. I thought I would share it here.

Scripture was written for the original audience with an original intention. This meaning can be discovered sometimes without any real knowledge of the setting or culture. Other times this meaning cannot be understood without the original context.

After knowing the original meaning of Scripture we must rely on the Holy Spirit to help us transfer the principle of Scripture into our reality. How is that principle lived out? What areas of my life are not in line with that principle? What do I need to change?

Although the meaning and/or principle never changes, the practical application of it might throughout the many years and through the many different people. Loving our neighbor will mean something completely different on a practical level to you as it does me because our neighbors are different people.

Despite the changing applications, the Scripture is unwavering in its principles. Applying those principles throughout the generations and different locations does take a different face some times, although other times it does not.

The Sermon on the Mount, Barack Obama and James Dobson

Today, Barack Obama will come under attack by James Dobson on Focus on the Family. I find the whole debate interesting.

In regards to the United States' military and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Obama stated, "A passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." Later, he said, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

What I find interesting is that Obama's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is accurate; however, he then moves on to ignore the radical teaching of Jesus and not apply it to his belief system.

On the other hand, Dobson does not seem to do any better even though he is throwing the first stone. Dobson doesn't even go as far as Obama in that Obama actually realizes the radical teaching of Jesus; he just refuses to follow it through some method of justification. Dobson has a method of interpretation that allows him to apparently say the radical teaching is not there. He, like Obama, has some sort of method of justifying the radical teaching of non-violence away. The Sermon on the Mount clearly teaches a lifestyle that makes serving in the United States military impossible. Obama's sees this, but does not apply it. Dobson does not see it.

In an email response from an agent of Dr. Dobson to a listener who was writing with concern about Focus on the Family's support of the Iraq war, Focus on the Family described their position: "Dr. Dobson doesn’t like war and killing any better than you do, but he believes that this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many."

At the core of the debate, which will never really be discussed, is how do we interpret and apply Scripture. Is the Old Testament law still applicable? How do we handle the counter-cultural statements contained in the Sermon on the Mount? Each one of use has decided for ourselves how we handle the Scriptures; some people have more clearly defined and consistent methods while others just pick and choose. This debate, at its core, is truly about methods of interpretation, and I do not think either Dobson or Obama want to apply the clear and difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. But then neither do we. We still all have our eyes and hands despite sinning.

Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

I am not as consistent as I would like to believe I am.

Unpacking the Hermeneutic Quiz

First, thanks for taking the quiz. I hope you found it interesting. I think there is much to be gleaned through such an exercise. And though pigeonholing people and painting with broad brushes tends to bear little fruit in most cases, if taken as a general starting point to understand one another, then categorizing can be helpful. With this caveat in mind, let me attempt to unpack some of the questions and responses with the goal of understanding one another’s approach to the Bible better.

The conservative response to the question of “The Bible is…” was “God's inspired words in confluence with the authors” and “God's exact words for all time.” In addition, this view tends to view the Bible as “inerrant on everything.” In other words, there is no possibility of human error or the author’s opinion making its way into the Bible. If you have this “top-down” view of inspiration, you will tend to be more literalistic – God said it, so I believe/do it. Though some original context and cultural background is taken into consideration, this view more or less takes the Bible at face value. Many Christians say they take the Bible literally – as though every story happened as recorded and every law, commandment, and exhortation remains valid for present day Christians. The underlying reason that many take this tact is, I believe, is because they are attempting to avoid defying God and God’s expectations for followers. Though people with this view tend to be dogmatic, they are basing their interpretation on a genuine desire to live according to God’s will.

The second, “moderate” option given was still literal in nature but allowed for some leeway in modern appropriation. This moderate response framed the Bible as, “God's inspired words that arise out of a community and then are written down by an author” and “God's message (instead of exact words) for all time.” The idea of a “community” takes much more of the original context into consideration. In addition, the word “message” leaves plenty of room for interpretation and application. For the most part, I think adherents to this view often choose to err on the more conservative side. As the response to question three indicates, they believe that the Bible is “Inerrant on only matters of faith and practice.” So, things like punctuation, grammar, etc. are irrelevant and unimportant. What is important is that God has the final say and overrides any bias or theological interpolation by the writer. So, though they do not believe God took over the brain and hand of the original writer, the message that God wanted to convey has been written down. This view allows for some of the author’s style, perspective, etc., but keeps the Bible authoritative and inspired by God.

The final, “progressive” option stated the following: “The Bible is words of an author who speaks out of a community's tradition, but which sacramentally lead us to God” and is “God's words and message for that time but need interpretation and contextualization to be lived today.” Basically, there is a core message conveyed and there is still application, but the modern appropriation requires more nuancing instead of a one to one direct application. My view of women’s roles in the church would probably fall into this category. In addition, the Bible is, “Not defined by inerrancy or errancy, which are modernistic categories.” I will say that I agree with the first part of this statement but not the second. The concept of “modernistic categories” is a bit of a cop out. I would say that the Bible has to more to do with conveying the journey of faith by faithful followers and therefore is truth rather than being truth by virtue of its “inerrancy.” The point of the Bible is to aid us in experiencing the fellowship of God with a community similar to the communities of the original writers.

The stream of interpretation has ebbed and flowed throughout history. Few people would align themselves completely with one camp or another. I think most believers understand that the Bible is a diverse book, containing multiple genres in a different language making interpretation a difficult process at best. At the same time, I believe we all have interpretive tendencies based on our inspirational view. I will unpack this concept in next week’s post.

Hermeneutic Quiz

Shannon directed Regan and me to a little Hermeneutic Quiz from building church leaders.com. For those who are unaware with the terminology, a hermeneutic is a method or principle of interpretation, usually applied to the Bible. So this quiz, through a series of questions, attempts to identify how you interpret the Bible.

Though not perfect, it is quite insightful regarding your Biblical approach. We will be using this quiz as a springboard for future discussions. So, we encourage you to take the quiz (follow the link and click on “Take Assessment”) and report your score to give everyone an idea of where you stand before we continue with the specific topics. I give you the same advice Shannon gave to me – take the quiz honestly, because it is easy to skew your answers conservatively or liberally.

By way of reference…
Sam scored an 80
Shannon scored a 64
Regan scored a 68

Highway of Prayer

From an article on CNN.com:

If you turn to the Bible -- Isaiah Chapter 35, Verse 8 -- you will see a passage that in part says, "A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness."

Now, is it possible that this "highway" mentioned in Chapter 35 is actually Interstate 35 that runs through six U.S. states, from southern Texas to northern Minnesota? Some Christians have faith that is indeed the case. Churchgoers in all six states recently finished 35 days of praying alongside Interstate 35, but the prayers are still continuing.

Some of the faithful believe that in order to fulfill the prophecy of I-35 being the "holy" highway, it needs some intensive prayer first. So we watched as about 25 fervent and enthusiastic Christians prayed on the interstate's shoulder in Dallas.

Let me preface what I am about to write with the following:

I believe in the power of prayer.
I believe in the need for us to pray.
I believe the Bible can speak to us even today.
I believe Christians should be public with their faiths.
I believe Christians should work to enact change in the world.

With those statements in place, let me continue. Stories like this irk me to no end. Many reasons could be cited, but for the most part my frustration centers around the effect of these sorts of actions. I think this whole thing does little more than mar the reputations of Christians and the Church. The world looks and things, “What a bunch of imbeciles.” Even the writer said “...most people, the religious and the non-religious alike, don't buy any of this...”.

Does this highway and its many “adult businesses” need prayer for renewal and repentance? Of course. But to cloak it in some specific fulfillment of this ancient text smacks of ignorance in regard to interpreting the Bible. I don’t want to sound like one of those arrogant scholars or 2nd year undergraduate students, but I get so tired of what is, in my opinion, terrible exegesis. The writer of Isaiah 35 was not thinking of a concrete highway for combustible engine vehicles built some 2500 years later. Rather, the writer used specific imagery to depict restoration and a fulfillment of God’s promises and plan for this world. More than likely s/he envisioned a restored Israel returned to its status as a world power and influence. Thus it seems ludicrous to appropriate this text in this way.

So what am I to do with such stories? What am I to do when church members bring such things to my attention and say, “Isn’t this great? Christians living out their faiths.” What am I to do when other Christians are embarrassing the rest of us? Or am I being overly critical?