What Good Is Literal Understanding?

[John Hyperspace]

All of the scripture can be understood figuratively, and would all have figurative meaning; but only some of it can be understood literally*. My question is, what good does the literal side of the coin do? What good is literal understanding of the scripture? Also, what parts of the scripture do you believe MUST be understood literally, or else the reader is not of Christ?

Briefly, to understand what I mean by figurative: take the Exodus from Egypt in the Old Testament. This can be understood literally, and can also be understood as figuratively pointing toward Christ, and the figurative exodus from figurative bondage in figurative Egypt of the figurative children of figurative Israel. I presume most people reading this understand this; and so in all things, there is a figurative understanding; and in some things also a literal understanding.

But I'm asking, what good is the literal understanding? Also, how will we be sure our literal understanding is the correct literal understanding? Meaning, how do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 1 is correct? How do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 6 is correct? How do we know which, and if we cannot know which is correct; the question of 'what good is literal understanding' becomes emphatic.

*I suppose one could also understand all of the scripture literally, but that would make for some incredible understandings; I'm confident no one reading this would argue all of the bible can be understood literally, in the spirit of the idea.

 

[1213]

...Also, what parts of the scripture do you believe MUST be understood literally, or else the reader is not of Christ?...

I think all should be taken literally, unless Bible explains it otherwise. Especially I think commandments like “don’t murder” should be taken literally.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think all should be taken literally, unless Bible explains it otherwise. Especially I think commandments like “don’t murder” should be taken literally.

So snakes and donkeys talk?

 

[xpower]

When Jesus said "I am the door" was he speaking literally? No I don't think Jesus was literally a door with a doorknob. He was speaking figuratively. I don't think the entire Bible should be read literally, I mean there's poetry in the Bible and we don't read poetry literally.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I think all should be taken literally, unless Bible explains it otherwise. Especially I think commandments like “don’t murder” should be taken literally.

You think we should understand it literally when Jesus says "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood"? Or, when God said "I bore you on eagle's wings"? Or, when we see a "seven-headed beast rising from the sea"? Jesus is to be understood as a literal Lamb? Does the Bible explain any of these otherwise? Bear in mind "It's obvious it isn't literal" in no way means "the Bible explains it otherwise" but mean, you're deciding arbitrarily that it shouldn't be understood literally.

About the command "do no murder" this can also be understood figuratively of 'hating your brother': 1 John 3:15: and the good news here is that one who "does not figurative murder" will by nature do no literal murder, so the figurative understanding covers both acts, even though the command is not understood literally. All commands can be understood figuratively, as well as literally. "Do no adultery" can be understood as, figurative adultery, or, literal adultery, or, both.

But, the question is really, what good does literal understanding do? Does the question make sense? I may need to clarify.

 

[John Hyperspace]

When Jesus said "I am the door" was he speaking literally? No I don't think Jesus was literally a door with a doorknob. He was speaking figuratively. I don't think the entire Bible should be read literally, I mean there's poetry in the Bible and we don't read poetry literally.

But what parts of the Bible do you think should be understood literally? And, what good does it do you to understand these parts literally? Is there any part of the Bible you think must be understood literally, or else the person understanding purely figuratively is "not in Christ"?

 

[ScottA]

All of the scripture can be understood figuratively, and would all have figurative meaning; but only some of it can be understood literally*. My question is, what good does the literal side of the coin do? What good is literal understanding of the scripture? Also, what parts of the scripture do you believe MUST be understood literally, or else the reader is not of Christ?

Briefly, to understand what I mean by figurative: take the Exodus from Egypt in the Old Testament. This can be understood literally, and can also be understood as figuratively pointing toward Christ, and the figurative exodus from figurative bondage in figurative Egypt of the figurative children of figurative Israel. I presume most people reading this understand this; and so in all things, there is a figurative understanding; and in some things also a literal understanding.

But I'm asking, what good is the literal understanding? Also, how will we be sure our literal understanding is the correct literal understanding? Meaning, how do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 1 is correct? How do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 6 is correct? How do we know which, and if we cannot know which is correct; the question of 'what good is literal understanding' becomes emphatic.

*I suppose one could also understand all of the scripture literally, but that would make for some incredible understandings; I'm confident no one reading this would argue all of the bible can be understood literally, in the spirit of the idea.

"All things come in parables" Mark 4:11. The matter is typically perceived just the opposite of what is true, but: Reality by the common definition, is a mere image of what is actually real.

Thus, "literal understanding" is not understanding at all.

When Christ claimed, "The words I speak to you are spirit"...is He not the Word of God, making every word of scripture spirit?

"Literal" usually refers to the best information available to the natural man.

 

[LoveDivine]

I agree that many Scriptures have a figurative or symbolic meaning. It is a mistake to read every passage as a literal statement. That being said, I have known some people to take this too far and begin to downplay or discredit the passages of scripture that give a detailed account of miracles. A good example would be Thomas Jefferson. He rewrote the four gospels and removed all the accounts of Christ's miracles. His work was titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

I recall once having a discussion with someone about the account of Jonah. He thought it was ridiculous to believe that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and spent three days in the fish's stomach. Although I believe that Jonah is a type of Christ and definitely foreshadows the death and resurrection of Christ, I absolutely believe that he did get swallowed and spend three days/ nights in the belly of the fish.

I believe that scriptures regarding the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the trinity must be taken literally or the very foundation of the gospel is eroded.

I also take descriptions concerning heaven and hell literally ( I don't think that is a necessary belief to be within Christ though)

 

[Steve Petersen]

I believe that scriptures regarding the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the trinity must be taken literally or the very foundation of the gospel is eroded.

So, theological necessity requires that some portions of the Bible be read literally? Sounds like the verdict was decided then the evidence created.

 

[LoveDivine]

So, theological necessity requires that some portions of the Bible be read literally? Sounds like the verdict was decided then the evidence created.

I'm not sure I understand your position correctly. Are you saying that you don't read these scriptures literally?

I don't personally see the validity of scripture or purpose for reading it if God's nature and characteristics are not exactly as he declares in his word. If Christ wasn't born of a virgin, didn't have a dual nature on earth, the trinity is just a figure of speech, etc, then how can we be sure that anything in Scripture is profitable for us to follow?

I am not saying these doctrines need to be literal to satisfy my own theology. However, the entirety of the gospel is founded on the cornerstone truth that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and none can receive eternal life apart from him. If this truth is to be accepted and believed, then it follows that we must also accept the statements concerning who Christ is. Christ also repeatedly referenced his own divinity. The Jews understood his references and wanted to kill him for blasphemy. The entirety of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is based on the sacrifice of the son of God for our sins. The prophets prophesied of the virgin birth. Behold a Virgin shall conceive. What metaphor do you see in that passage? Once again, even Herod and his scribes took these OT prophesies literally. Wicked Herod figured out where to send the wise men just from consulting OT prophesies.

If Christ wasn't right about his own divinity or using a figure of speech, then I am not too confident in his claim that he is the only way to eternal life. Perhaps this eternal life he spoke of was also just a figure of speech or a metaphor.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I agree that many Scriptures have a figurative or symbolic meaning.

I just wanted to note that, all of them have a figurative meaning. Some can also have a literal meaning. My question is, what good is the literal component? Why not, allow it to convey the figuratuve meaning, and simply discard the literal meaning? Somewhat as if one might consider a sign no longer of use after the sign has pointed the direction of the destination? What good does the literal understanding actually do?

It is a mistake to read every passage as a literal statement. That being said, I have known some people to take this too far and begin to downplay or discredit the passages of scripture that give a detailed account of miracles. A good example would be Thomas Jefferson. He rewrote the four gospels and removed all the accounts of Christ's miracles. His work was titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, I'm familiar with Jefferson's views. But I would have proposed to Jefferson, "Tommy, instead of removing the portions which you object to a literal understanding, why not instead transform your understanding of the passages into a figurative understanding? Thus we can discard the literal but keep the figurative, and not throw out a figurative truth good for instruction in spiritual matters?"

For instance, Jefferson may say "I object to the literal understanding of the healing of the eyes of the blind" and I would propose "But consider this to be a figurative statement revealing that the teachings may figuratively heal the figurative eyes of the figuratively blind? So that this 'literal sign/miracle' is a figurative conveyance of the truth that, understanding opens the eyes of the ignorant?"

I recall once having a discussion with someone about the account of Jonah. He thought it was ridiculous to believe that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and spent three days in the fish's stomach. Although I believe that Jonah is a type of Christ and definitely foreshadows the death and resurrection of Christ, I absolutely believe that he did get swallowed and spend three days/ nights in the belly of the fish.

Okay but my question is, what good does it do you to believe the literal understanding? If you believe Jonah was literally swallowed by a literal fish - what good does that literal belief actually do for you, or, anyone? Let me make clear that I'm not saying "This never literally happened" and I'm also not saying "This literally happened." But, is God writing this down through men so that He says "You had better believe this literally happened" or that He says "I'm not concerned with whether or not you believe this literally happened, but that you 'look beyond' the literal understanding and perceive that figurative truth I'm telling you by way of this story"?

I believe that scriptures regarding the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the trinity must be taken literally or the very foundation of the gospel is eroded.

How so? If I believe all things figuratively, what am I missing? What 'good' does the literal understanding do for me that I should need it?

I also take descriptions concerning heaven and hell literally ( I don't think that is a necessary belief to be within Christ though)

Okay but why not figuratively? Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven doesn't come with observation, is it literal? Or a figurative kingdom? Jesus said to Nicodemus "You must be born again" and Nicodemus stumbled at the words, and took them literally, and asked "How can a man enter his mother's womb a second time?" John 3:3-4 Jesus said to the woman at the well, "I can give you living water" and the woman stumbled and asked "You don't even have anything to draw water with, how can you give me this living water?" John 4:10-11

You see how these people kept stumbling over their literal understanding? But if they would just, look beyond the literal, to, overcome the literal, and understand the figurative: then they might have understood rightly.

 

[LoveDivine]

I see your points, but I think the literal interpretation has value for several reasons. This is just my personal view. I'm not trying to be argumentative.


I believe that the bible is also a history book. The lives of the saints are recorded for our instruction and edification. Why does it matter if the stories are literal? It is a record of God's dealings with man. As we read the accounts we are given examples of the consequences of sin or disobedience. We are also given the accounts of miracles to show the power and glory of God while he was here on earth. The miracles of Christ were the display of his divinity and the proof that he was more than just a carpenter from Nazareth. His resurrection from the grave being the greatest of all

Lastly, the literal interpretation of the miracles is vital for our faith. If we know that Christ healed the lepers, restored sight to the blind, parted the Red Sea, etc we can grow our faith and seek him for intervention in times of trouble and distress. If I only ever focus on the figurative interpretation of these miracles, it doesn't help my faith develop

 

[1213]

You think we should understand it literally when Jesus says "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood"?...

Jesus continues by saying:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

And so, the “blood” gets new meaning that is not the one people first think.

...
But, the question is really, what good does literal understanding do? Does the question make sense? I may need to clarify.

If we accept that we can make non-literal meanings freely, the whole book loses any meanings, it becomes ultra-arbitrary and we could as well go to speak about Harry Potters last adventures. I think we should respect the writer and try to understand what he wanted to say and usually in all texts it is not done by adding own meanings to what is written.

 

[1213]

So snakes and donkeys talk?

According to the Bible, some people heard donkey speaking and some heard “serpent” speaking. I believe it happened, but I am not sure what it really meant. Was it that they heard through the subject voice, or was it that the imagined, or was it that the animal really spoke? Difficult to know surely, but I don’t see it impossible, all though I understand it is not normal as I think ancient people also taught.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Jesus continues by saying:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

And so, the “blood” gets new meaning that is not the one people first think.

You mean the blood gets a figurative meaning, and not the literal one people think at first? That the literal thing is not the true understanding, but the figurative one is the true understanding? Interesting. I suppose the thread title is still viable.

If we accept that we can make non-literal meanings freely, the whole book loses any meanings, it becomes ultra-arbitrary

Was your above quote about the "new meaning" of the "blood" ultra-arbitrary? Why do you think the figurative understanding would be ultra-arbtrary when you just used it? Paul uses it at Galatians 4:22-24: was Paul being ultra-arbitrary? What makes you claim that understanding the Bible is ultra-arbitrary?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I see your points, but I think the literal interpretation has value for several reasons. This is just my personal view. I'm not trying to be argumentative.

I understand, and do not feel you're being anywhere close to "argumentative": I hope you will understand the same of me. Please understand that it isn't my purpose to diminish your faith in anything whatsoever, but only to share mine.

I believe that the bible is also a history book. The lives of the saints are recorded for our instruction and edification. Why does it matter if the stories are literal? It is a record of God's dealings with man. As we read the accounts we are given examples of the consequences of sin or disobedience. We are also given the accounts of miracles to show the power and glory of God while he was here on earth. The miracles of Christ were the display of his divinity and the proof that he was more than just a carpenter from Nazareth. His resurrection from the grave being the greatest of all
Lastly, the literal interpretation of the miracles is vital for our faith.

I understand this is your belief. But, why is it necessary for your faith? If Jesus worked no signs, would you have no faith in His words? Do you require a sign to have faith in the words of Jesus? Or, are His teachings simply, the truth to your hearing ear? If a man says "Jesus can heal the eyes of the literally blind" and another says "Jesus can heal the eyes of the spiritually blind": isn't the latter a greater understanding than the former? What does the ability to heal the eyes of the literal blind really do for a man, spiritually? If I could heal the eyes of the literal blind, but not open their spiritual eyes to the truth: what good does my sign really do? What is the real purpose of the sign? Isn't the real purpose of the literal to show the spiritual truth? Why do you think Jesus did literal signs if not to "prove" that His teachings could perform the spiritual fulfillment of that sign? Do you understand what I mean?

If we know that Christ healed the lepers, restored sight to the blind, parted the Red Sea, etc we can grow our faith and seek him for intervention in times of trouble and distress. If I only ever focus on the figurative interpretation of these miracles, it doesn't help my faith develop

Really? But if you believe that Christ could figuratively cleanse figurative lepers (sinners), restore figurative sight to the figurative blind, divide figurative waters to pass safely through into a figurative promised land; you wouldn't have faith for Him to intervene in important matters of your soul and spiritual journey toward God? Is the earthly greater than the heavenly?

If you and I saw Jesus literally heal the literal blind, and you say "This man literally heals the body; let's go get our sick cousin to be healed!" and I reply "Hold still, sister: I perceive through this earthly sign that God has approved this man's teachings, and though this man may literally heal, this man has power through His teachings to give figurative sight to the figuratively blind. We must fetch our entire house, and our neighbors, as many as will come, all to hear this man's teachings so that we may all get healed of our spiritual blindness."

Do you see what I mean? What is really the important thing here? That we perceive the literal, or, the figurative which is the goal?

 

[com7fy8]

what good does literal understanding do?

It can do good. I see what the context is, in order to see what is literal and what is literary.

John 4:17 says >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

I think this is an example of what is meant literally. It is good for this to really mean what it says, because . . . I understand . . . it means God has succeeded in making His children perfect the way His love makes people perfect, and not in some inferior way of being perfect. Also, it shows that, yes, God is so personally interested in each of us, that He has so changed us in His own love (Romans 5:5). And it is so blessed to be "as He is" "in this world" > no procrastination until later while we keep on being in a mess of sin, now.

 

[John Hyperspace]

It can do good. I see what the context is, in order to see what is literal and what is literary.

John 4:17 says >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

I think this is an example of what is meant literally. It is good for this to really mean what it says, because . . . I understand . . . it means God has succeeded in making His children perfect the way His love makes people perfect, and not in some inferior way of being perfect. Also, it shows that, yes, God is so personally interested in each of us, that He has so changed us in His own love (Romans 5:5). And it is so blessed to be "as He is" "in this world" > no procrastination until later while we keep on being in a mess of sin, now.

But look at the preceding verse: 1 John 4:16 Do you understand this literally? That we literally dwell in God through love? Or, figuratively? Is our dwelling in God in love, in this world; a literal thing? Or, figurative? I'm not suggesting we "don't understand the words" but that we understand them in the spiritual/figurative sense, and not the carnal/literal sense.

 

[LoveDivine]

I understand, and do not feel you're being anywhere close to "argumentative": I hope you will understand the same of me. Please understand that it isn't my purpose to diminish your faith in anything whatsoever, but only to share mine.



I understand this is your belief. But, why is it necessary for your faith? If Jesus worked no signs, would you have no faith in His words? Do you require a sign to have faith in the words of Jesus? Or, are His teachings simply, the truth to your hearing ear? If a man says "Jesus can heal the eyes of the literally blind" and another says "Jesus can heal the eyes of the spiritually blind": isn't the latter a greater understanding than the former? What does the ability to heal the eyes of the literal blind really do for a man, spiritually? If I could heal the eyes of the literal blind, but not open their spiritual eyes to the truth: what good does my sign really do? What is the real purpose of the sign? Isn't the real purpose of the literal to show the spiritual truth? Why do you think Jesus did literal signs if not to "prove" that His teachings could perform the spiritual fulfillment of that sign? Do you understand what I mean?



Really? But if you believe that Christ could figuratively cleanse figurative lepers (sinners), restore figurative sight to the figurative blind, divide figurative waters to pass safely through into a figurative promised land; you wouldn't have faith for Him to intervene in important matters of your soul and spiritual journey toward God? Is the earthly greater than the heavenly?

If you and I saw Jesus literally heal the literal blind, and you say "This man literally heals the body; let's go get our sick cousin to be healed!" and I reply "Hold still, sister: I perceive through this earthly sign that God has approved this man's teachings, and though this man may literally heal, this man has power through His teachings to give figurative sight to the figuratively blind. We must fetch our entire house, and our neighbors, as many as will come, all to hear this man's teachings so that we may all get healed of our spiritual blindness."

Do you see what I mean? What is really the important thing here? That we perceive the literal, or, the figurative which is the goal?

I see your point. I do agree that the greater miracle is Christ's restoration of our spiritual state. I think of the account of Christ telling the man that his sins were forgiven. When the Pharisees balked at that, he demonstrated his power by telling him to arise and pick up his bed. I think in that story the greater impossibility to the Pharisees was that Christ claimed to have the power to forgive sins. I think that account would tend to support your view that the figurative meaning is even more important than the literal interpretation.

That being said, for me personally, I derive a lot of faith from reading the literal accounts of miracles. Perhaps this is due to my theological persuasion. I am from a more Pentecostal background and do still believe in modern miracles and divine healing. A lot of Christians don't. I find it a source of strength when praying for God's intervention or help in situations to recall the stories of those who were healed. My ultimate favorite is the Roman centurion who displayed tremendous faith on behalf of his servant. I guess I cling to the literal interpretation because many Christians don't really believe that physical healing was included in the atonement. All believe in spiritual healing. My concern is that if we focus more on the figurative we can begin to doubt the literal. It is amazing how easy it is to waiver and lose faith if you don't see an answer to your prayers for awhile. Every little seemingly insignificant doubt gets magnified. Not all Christians believe it is God's will to heal us but all believe it is his desire to save us from our sins and spiritual depravity. While I am not saying that God always answers our prayers, I personally need some basis for approaching him in faith requesting healing. I don't want to take every account of every miracle only figuratively because it can cast doubt that Christ was actually also interested in physical restoration and healing while he was here on earth. Many who don't believe in healing do take the more figurative approach. They see those miracles as object lessons of what Christ was really intending: our spiritual healing. Thus they tend to explain away divine healing for today. They view those miracles as being only necessary during Christ's ministry on earth.

 

[com7fy8]

1 John 4:16 Do you understand this literally? That we literally dwell in God through love? Or, figuratively? Is our dwelling in God in love, in this world; a literal thing? Or, figurative?

"And we have believed and known the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16)

I understand that this is a spiritual truth, about what is happening in the spiritual realm. And about spiritual reality, it is meant literally. I understand that to abide means to stay with. In this case, I see it can mean that we stay with God, by staying in spiritual union with Him, because 1 Corinthians 6:17 does say >

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

And if I take this to be literal . . . i.e., it means what it says . . . then this is very good and encouraging, because it means God wants us to be so personally sharing with Him, even in actual spiritual union with Him in His own love (Romans 5:5), all the time > abiding . . . not only at times and during experiences.