Literal interpretation is not Scriptural

[freespiritchurch]

In a question about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark, I got accused of destroying Christianity because I challenged literal interpretation. I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I thought I would post here.

I want to affirm that Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the authority for Christian life and belief. And I believe it's wrong to use human criteria to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are really true.

Many Christians discount certain parts of the Bible on scientific or ethical grounds. They might say:

If something in the Bible doesn't fit with science, they encourage us to discard it. So miracles, resurrection, the Flood, and so on can't be historically true because they're historically impossible.

(I'm putting this in quotes because I don't personally agree with it.)

The same thing applies to ethics:

These passages in the Bible where God tells his people to slaughter women and children, or supports slavery, are obviously wrong and unethical and so they can't come from God's Spirit.

But if you read what the Bible itself has to say, it becomes clear that there's no Biblical warrant for interpreting the Bible literally.

Look at what Jesus and the Apostles had to say aobut Scriputre. Jesus himself takes passages and looks for the deeper meaning beneath them. He tells us that the law allowing divorce doesn't really mean that it's OK to divorce, and "do not kill" also means "don't call your brother bad names." These aren't in the literal meaning, and people obviously thought that he was bringing a new law...but he makes it clear that he's bringing out the inner meaning of the law, not contradicting it.

An even more interesting example is 1 Corinthians 9:9-10:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

Here, Paul explicitly rejects the literal meaning of the Bible. The law might refer literally to oxen, but he says--under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the literal meaning isn't important here--that we need to look for the deeper meaning in the specific law.

I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us. I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

Alan

 

[sunlover1]

In a question about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark, I got accused of destroying Christianity because I challenged literal interpretation. I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I thought I would post here.

I want to affirm that Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the authority for Christian life and belief. And I believe it's wrong to use human criteria to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are really true.

Many Christians discount certain parts of the Bible on scientific or ethical grounds. They might say:



(I'm putting this in quotes because I don't personally agree with it.)

The same thing applies to ethics:



But if you read what the Bible itself has to say, it becomes clear that there's no Biblical warrant for interpreting the Bible literally.

Look at what Jesus and the Apostles had to say aobut Scriputre. Jesus himself takes passages and looks for the deeper meaning beneath them. He tells us that the law allowing divorce doesn't really mean that it's OK to divorce, and "do not kill" also means "don't call your brother bad names." These aren't in the literal meaning, and people obviously thought that he was bringing a new law...but he makes it clear that he's bringing out the inner meaning of the law, not contradicting it.

An even more interesting example is 1 Corinthians 9:9-10:


Here, Paul explicitly rejects the literal meaning of the Bible. The law might refer literally to oxen, but he says--under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the literal meaning isn't important here--that we need to look for the deeper meaning in the specific law.

I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us. I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

Alan

Interesting sentiment.
I think we should always always pray for enlightenment before we read, like in my signature.

sunlover

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

An even more interesting example is 1 Corinthians 9:9-10:


Here, Paul explicitly rejects the literal meaning of the Bible. The law might refer literally to oxen, but he says--under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the literal meaning isn't important here--that we need to look for the deeper meaning in the specific law.

I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us. I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

Alan

The LORD often spoke in riddles and parables to the Jews and it appears the Jews would understand this "alleghory" better than I can.

Gala 4:23 but he who [is] of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who [is] of the free-woman, through the promise; 24 which things are ALLEGHORIZED, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar;

 

[JAL]

In a question about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark, I got accused of destroying Christianity because I challenged literal interpretation. I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I thought I would post here.

I want to affirm that Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the authority for Christian life and belief. And I believe it's wrong to use human criteria to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are really true.

Many Christians discount certain parts of the Bible on scientific or ethical grounds. They might say:


(I'm putting this in quotes because I don't personally agree with it.)

The same thing applies to ethics:



But if you read what the Bible itself has to say, it becomes clear that there's no Biblical warrant for interpreting the Bible literally.

Look at what Jesus and the Apostles had to say aobut Scriputre. Jesus himself takes passages and looks for the deeper meaning beneath them. He tells us that the law allowing divorce doesn't really mean that it's OK to divorce, and "do not kill" also means "don't call your brother bad names." These aren't in the literal meaning, and people obviously thought that he was bringing a new law...but he makes it clear that he's bringing out the inner meaning of the law, not contradicting it.

An even more interesting example is 1 Corinthians 9:9-10:


Here, Paul explicitly rejects the literal meaning of the Bible. The law might refer literally to oxen, but he says--under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the literal meaning isn't important here--that we need to look for the deeper meaning in the specific law.

I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us. I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

Alan

True, some of the Bible is non-literal. However, for me it's an issue of conscience. I cannot, at this point, in clear conscience take the position, "Since some of the Bible is non-literal, we are justified in regarding any passage we like as non-literal."

On the contrary, my conscience says to me, "At least for those books which SEEM to be literal (eg. the historical books and the epistles), try to take them as literally as possible - only give way to a non-literal reading when NECESSARY."


By the way, your law-example is not a good example. Contrary to your assumptions, the issue here is not that the law is non-literal text. The issue is rather that God's will is too complex to be expressed in words. For example, if I tell somone, "Don't touch that alarm switch" - but suppose one day the building is burning down. He should now do the opposite of my command, because circumstances have changed. My command was literal, but it could not, in such few words, describe obedience for all situations.

Your oxen example was more convincing, but also questionable. The passage could have a double application - one applicable to oxen (a very literal application), and the other applicable to men (a somewhat non-literal application).

I myself am an OEC who ascribes to a literal reading of Genesis - and I think I've done a pretty good job of showing that an OEC reading can be lieral (in other posts), but I take a very unique position which I might not get into here.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I agree with the original poster. Now I find if Im not seeing something spiritually I end up questioning it

How about LITERALLY SPIRITUAL

God is Spirit and just because he is does not make Him less literal amen?

I suppose it might be better to say "carnally" interpreted verses "spiritually" interpreted maybe?

Paul says the Holy Spirit teaches us "comparing spiritual things with spiritual".

So we must sincerely "ask ourselves" when we are comparing things whether they be "natural to natural", "natural with spiritual" or "spiritual with spiritual"?

Scripture corrects us.

Even things that "might have been" physically so are even (in themselves) used as a (if you will allow) a sorta bouncing board aiding to our understanding spiritual truths.

I cant understand having a fear of "spiritual truths" as His words are SPIRIT.

If one holds fast to what they see as a carnal truth only wouldnt they end up with a history book only? Not sure I gotta think more before responding here.

The flesh has always been the veil, and the carnal man (naturally minded) is shown unable to see anything more then that which speaks to concerning "the letter". Understanding only so far as its capable to "naturally know"? Is that how best to put that as script shows?

Scripture says its ~SPIRITUAL with SPIRITUAL~. He spoke by the prophets and USED similitudes and multiplied visions, that would make sense of scripture to consider its direction. Whats most difficult is to get past is what others have falsely called "false" (throwing it into some weird category) to which we attribute a thing. In simply returning to His words and see how the apostles used them (ridding ourselves of our preconceived ideas) helps only ourselves.

Sometimes we got other seeds planted in us by others which are not nessesarily the truth. I hope I put that right, if not forgive me for my lack of clarity.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[daveleau]

I think there are clues in the passages that imply whether a passage is to be taken literally or not. There is definitely figurative and allegorical language in Scripture, and it depends on what genre the passage is written in as to how much allegory and figurative meaning should be interpreted. For instance, the historical writings such as 1/2 Kings has much less figurative language than does Psalms, which is poetic in genre. The apocalyptic genre also has more figurative language in it, while narratives and epistles have less. So, I think a blanket assumption on the amount of figurative or allegorical interpretation used in Scripture can lead to problems. Once we understand the genre, then there are rules of thumb that apply to that style of writing that we can apply in our interpretation. The rules governing interpretation of different genres of Scriptural writings never completely vacate allegory and figurative language in any genre. Likewise, no genre is seen as solely allegorical or figurative. Each genre has a relative amount of allegory. The key is to looking at Scripture to determine what is intended to be allegorical and what is not. The key is the author's intended meaning. This meaning can be applied in many different situations, and often people confuse application and interpretation. But, they are different animals, I think.

Was the Law to be taken literally? Yes, but it had principles ingrained in it that could apply elsewhere. I do not see the interpretation of Jesus used in the OP as an allegorical use, but as a principle being extracted and applied to different situations. There is a major difference between the two, in my opinion.

I think a superb example of allegory is the parable. Take the Parable of the Sower. The concept is not about grain, or soil, but about receptiveness to the Word of God. Some will take it and be fruitful, some will burn out and not stick with the precepts. Some will let their nature choke out the Word from their life, and some will not receive it at all.

I think prayer is a key aspect of interpretation. But, at the same time, relying on the Spirit too heavily without digging into the Scriptures to cross-check can lead to "false positives" in our interpretive methods. The Spirit will guide us, but we must discern it from our internal mind's train of thought. Otherwise, the pitfall mentioned in the OP of eisegesis (putting out own thoughts into Scripture's meaning) can replace exegesis (gathering information from the text.)

So, I completely agree that interpretation can incur some allegorical and figurative aspects and be correct. I think we need to realize when a principle is being drawn out and when it is truly allegory or figurative. And, I think the guidance of the Spirit is key, but that we must cross check it with Scripture to determine if it is truly from the Spirit, and not from our own ideas.

Great thread!

In Him,
Dave

 

[sunlover1]

Thank you Dave,
Well thought out and expressed!

sunlover

 

[Edial]

...
I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us. I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

Alan

But I do not know even one literalist who says that literal interpretations do not have any figures of speech.

Maybe there was a miscommunication between you and the posters you spoke with.

There are however, some people that look for a deeper meaning in every verse that they see.

But let me ask you a question.
Do you think that the story concerning Adam and Eve actually happened in history as described in Genesis?

If "yes", then I probably am misunderstanding you.
If "no", why not?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

In a question about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark, I got accused of destroying Christianity because I challenged literal interpretation. I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I thought I would post here.

I love studying dinosaurs and Scripture, but I don't have a clue where to put the dinosaurs, Biblically speaking. Its a mystery I'm willing to live with instead of attempting to force something that is probably not true (or worth it in the apologetic sense).

Many Christians discount certain parts of the Bible on scientific or ethical grounds.

It seems clear you hold firmly to the inerrancy of Scripture, which is my position as well.

But if you read what the Bible itself has to say, it becomes clear that there's no Biblical warrant for interpreting the Bible literally.

Perhaps previous discussions where folks claim to interpret the Bible literally have soured you interpreting the Bible "literally"?

Look at what Jesus and the Apostles had to say aobut Scriputre. Jesus himself takes passages and looks for the deeper meaning beneath them. He tells us that the law allowing divorce doesn't really mean that it's OK to divorce, and "do not kill" also means "don't call your brother bad names." These aren't in the literal meaning, and people obviously thought that he was bringing a new law...but he makes it clear that he's bringing out the inner meaning of the law, not contradicting it.

What you call the "deeper meaning" are principles. What a number of Jews did in Jesus day was interpret OT laws according to an oral tradition. Jesus bypassed this oral tradition and appealed directly to Scripture. Jesus however was telling the Pharisees something they already should have known and practiced. As he said in Matt 23:23, they gave tithes of spices, showing they knew minute details of the law. But Jesus told them they should done the tithing without neglecting the more important things - justice, mercy and faithfulness.

An even more interesting example is 1 Corinthians 9:9-10:

Here, Paul explicitly rejects the literal meaning of the Bible. The law might refer literally to oxen, but he says--under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the literal meaning isn't important here--that we need to look for the deeper meaning in the specific law.

1 Cor 9:9 is actually a specific application of a derived principle from Deut 24:4. First Paul needed to know the literal meaning of Deut 24:4: he had to understand the picture of an ox being muzzled while treading grain. An (unmuzzled) ox working hard at treading grain gets hungry and occasionally eats from the grain thats being ground. The muzzled ox works hard but cannot eat any of the grain. The owner of the muzzled ox ends up with more grain, but has not treated his oxen "humanely." The principle which Paul and the OT readers should have derived is not limited to simply a muzzled ox. For God to point out that an ox must be treated humanely leads to treating other animals - and servants - humanely instead of with a ruthless efficiency.

What Paul did in 1 Cor 9:9 and its parallel verse 1 Tim 5:18 is to compare church leader servants like himself to the ox treading the grain. People weren't supposed to suppress material support from church leader servants.

Paul's application of Deut 24:4 doesn't restrict the meaning of Deut 24:4 to only what Paul wrote. They can be and are a multitude of applications that one derives from principles in Scripture. But the meaning or interpretation of a passage - such as Deut 24:4 - is necessarily restricted and limited.

I could post many other examples in which the Bible tells us that we can't always interpret the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Instead, we have to look for the lesson that God wants to teach us.

That is true, Bible interpretation without personal application is just trivial pursuit. However we need to discover what the Bible says first, then what it means, and then how does it apply. If one does not know what the Bible says or means, then one cannot make an accurate application.

I agree that it is wrong to apply our own ideas about what is right or possible to Scripture...but that's exactly what literalists do when they say that the Bible can only be read in the way that makes sense to them--even when Scripture itself says otherwise.

I agree - reading one's own ideas into Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to say what it says is not right. But, if a "literalist" takes the opposite position than what Scripture actually says, then they are no longer a literalist, right? I think what you disagree with is a dogmatic eisogesis (reading into Scripture) by those who claim to be literalists.

I advocate a grammatical historical method of interpretation, which takes into account Biblical genres, figures of speech, etc -as Dave has already pointed out.


LDG

 

[sunlover1]

Excellent well thought out posts Fireinfolding, Edial, and Lamorak.

Very informative.
Ya'll aughta be teachers

 

[JTLauder]

If someone were to write an English book about today's American society and used the phrase like "One day, it was raining cats and dogs...", and someone knowing only some new undiscovered language 2000 years from now picks up the text, how are they going to interpret that phrase? The literalist would interpret it as actual cats and dogs falling out of the sky instead of it raining really hard.

I think it's useful to know the literal translations, but only with the understanding of their context and original meaning. But for casual or new Bible readers, the literal translation can be misleading and confusing.