Hi Hedrick. Awesome post. Very long, and very good, so I posted within your quote with
RED WORDS.
Literal interpretation can't work, and no one does it. It can't work because the Bible comes from an ancient culture that is very different than ours. Some examples, some of which have actually been interpreted literally and some of which haven't been:
* Slavery. Mandated in the OT in some places, Paul gives instructions for both masters and slaves; Paul returned an escaped slave. Was understood as Biblically supported in the US South. The argument I currently here is roughly this: Paul wasn’t thinking about whether slavery was wise or not, but simply telling people how to live within their current culture.
AMEN.
SLAVERY WASN'T MANDATED. GOD DOESN'T COMMAND US TO TAKE SLAVES.
* Heliocentric model. Passages in the Bible referring to the sun rising and setting, etc, was understood as describing a geocentric model. This was an issue in the 16th Cent, in which Galileo became involved. Calvin advocated a concept of “accommodation,” that God spoke through Scripture using terms that people would understand, and that he did not intend to teach astronomy.
TRUE TO A POINT.
GOD GAVE AMAZING INFORMATION TO THE BIBLE WRITERS THAT WAS BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION, THEREFORE MORE LIKE PROPHETIC OR REVELATORY INFORMATION THAT COULD BE CONFIRMED IN OUR TIME, BUT WAS TOO ADVANCED FOR THEIR TIME.
SCIENTISTS TODAY FOUND BLACK HOLES AND MANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL DISCOVERIES BY TAKING SCRIPTURE LITERALLY.
* Taking interest on loans. Prohibited by passages such as Ex 22:24, Lev 25:36. Was understood as prohibiting interest through most of Christian history. It doesn’t appear that there has been a formal change in Catholic practice, although enforcement has died out. Of course this was OT law, and thus not necessarily applicable to Christians. But still, for most of Christian history, it was applied to Christians. What changed? In the OT it was intended to prohibit taking advantage of the poor. But today, if properly managed, interest allows poor people to do things like buy houses that otherwise would be reserved to the more well off. Abuse is still possible, but at least in principle, it is no longer seen as necessarily bad.
AMEN.
SCRIPTURE DOESN'T FORBID LOANS, IT FORBIDS USURY, EXCESSIVE INTEREST ON LOANS.
SO A WRONG LITERAL INTERPRETATION DOESN'T MEAN SCRIPTURE IS WRONG OR CAN'T BE TAKEN LITERAL IN A PROPER SENSE.
IF SCRIPTURE CAN NEVER BE TAKEN LITERAL IN A PROPER SENSE, WE HAVE A BOOK OF ALLEGORIES, NOT A BOOK TO LIVE BY.
* Use of anesthetics in childbirth. There was apparently some concern about the religious implications, but as far as I can tell few actually objected. (There have been non-Christian claims of serious opposition, but the evidence seems not to support it.) So why do we undo what God did in Gen 3:16? I would argue that this passage was descriptive. That is, sin deranged the universe; this was one of its effects. There’s no reason Christians shouldn’t try to minimize the impact of sin.
AMEN.
SCRIPTURE DOESN'T TALK ABOUT ANESTHETICS.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION CAN ONLY BE USED ON CLEARLY WORDED SCRIPTURES.
MANY TOPICS AREN'T CLEARLY ADDRESSED IN SCRIPTURE. LIKE SMOKING.
* IRS employees. The standard Gospel reference to evildoers was “sinners and tax collectors.” See e.g. Mat 18:17. I’m not aware of anyone applying this condemnations to employees of the IRS. Why not? Since hasn’t been claimed, I’m not aware of anyone having justified accepting IRS employees in church. But I would argue that the reason is that although both 1st and 21st Cent tax collectors had the same formal job, in the 1st Cent the taxes were going to a State that Jesus’ hearers would have considered a conqueror, and tax collectors were set up in such a way that they typically cheated people. Hopefully in a democracy, we see tax collectors as helping us support the common good.
AMEN.
JESUS AND FATHER GOD DIDN'T SAY TAX COLLECTORS WERE EVIL.
IN FACT JESUS SAID TO PAY TAXES TO WHOM TAXES WERE DUE. MARK 12:17, ROMANS 13:7
* Killing witches. This occurred throughout history, up through early American history, often citing Ex 22:18. What changed? Again, this is an OT law. But is was certainly seen as relevant through most of Christian history. My sense is that what changed is that we stopped believing in witchcraft. I think if someone was actually murdering people supernaturally, we would want to consider this a capital crime. Though probably it would be best simply to prosecute it as murder.
AMEN.
WRONG INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE DOESN'T NULLIFY THE VALIDITY OF GOD'S CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS.
YOU DON'T SEE JEWS KILLING WITCHES. WHY? THEY UNDERSTAND THE OT SCRIPTURE BETTER. WE DON'T EVEN READ THE OT HARDLY, NEVER MIND TRY TO LIVE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT.
YOUR MANY VALUABLE POINTS PROVE IGNORANCE AND ACTIONS WITHOUT LOVE ARE DANGEROUSLY INACCURATE.
THE PROPER LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF CLEAR SCRIPTURE IS ADVISED.
* Women’s hats. When I was growing up, women were always required to wear hats in Church, based on 1 Cor 11:5. What changed? Again, I don’t think there was much formal argument. But hats came to be seen as obstructive and ostentatious. I think in effect we accepted that the symbolic role Paul gave to them no longer applied in our culture. However if you continue reading through 11:15, it is also possible that Paul wasn’t thinking of a hat in the first place, but may possibly have been referring to the woman’s hair as the covering of her head. (Commentators are divided, but the most common view is that he meant something like a hat.)
AMEN. WOMEN DIDN'T WEAR HATS IN PAUL'S DAY, THEY WORE SCARVES.
IGNORANCE OF WHAT PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT CREATES CRAZY INTERPRETATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
There are other examples, but some of them remain controversial. The point, however, is that there are places where everyone agrees that a “literal” reading is not appropriate. What are the grounds:
* differences in cultural context: tax collectors, hats, loans
* changes in belief about the world: witches, heliocentricity
* places where Scripture wasn’t answering the question we’re asking: slavery, heliocentricity, anesthesia
So simply using literal interpretation can't be your only guideline. One of the first things I look at is what was actually being taught. In the case of homosexuality, none of the passages in Paul were teaching anything about homosexuality. Rom 1 was about the impact of idolatry, and referred to licentious pagans, who had gotten tired of sex with the opposite gender and turned to their own gender. Nothing to do with Christian gays who want to live in a marriage that reflects Christian ideals. 1 Cor 6:9 uses words that may refer to homosexuality in a list whose purpose is to point to the need for moral change. In neither passage does Paul give any of his usual signs that he got a teaching from Christ or from God about homosexuality, because the passages were about other things.
AWESOME.
I AGREE THAT LITERAL INTERPRETATION CAN'T BE OUR ONLY GUIDELINE FOR THE EXCELLENT REASONS YOU GAVE.
BUT WHEN SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR, WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO NULLIFY IT WITH RELATIVITY.
AM I ALLOWED TO GET INTO A SCRIPTURE DISCUSSION OF THE HOMOSEXUALITY PASSAGES IN THIS FORUM?
I MIGHT DO THAT IF IT HELPS CLEAR UP SOME OF THIS.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BREAK THE RULES, OR HURT ANY OF THE ALREADY HURTING PEOPLE OF THE GLBT COMMUNITY.
MARIUS SAID IT WOULD HURT HIS FAITH AND RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD IF I COULD PROVE FROM SCRIPTURE GOD SAYS THE GAY LIFESTYLE IS TO BE FORSAKEN.
LET ME KNOW WHAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THIS FORUM.
YOUR SAFETY IS FIRST.
My first rule is that when a passage isn't about a topic but simply reflects the common view of the culture, there's no reason to take that as a teaching about the topic. Hence passages that reflect a flat earth or anything else don't bother me, because those are just incidental to the purpose of the passage.
I'M NOT AWARE OF FLAT EARTH SCRIPTURES, BUT I AGREE THAT IF SCRIPTURE ISN'T CLEAR ON A SUBJECT, WE CAN'T MAKE IT A DOGMATIC TEACHING.
WHETHER OR NOT A SCRIPTURE ONLY REFLECTS A SPECIFIC ANCIENT CULTURE WOULD BE DEBATEABLE.
THERE ISN'T MUCH NEW UNDER THE SUN, SO I THINK MOST OF WHAT'S IN SCRIPTURE COULD BE APPLIED IN A PROPER SENSE TODAY.
IT'S THE NATURE OF OUR OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT GOD TO HAVE PROVIDED TRUTH FOR FOR US IN EVERY AGE UNTIL HIS RETURN.