“If it were God’s word it can, and should
be taken literally right? Interpretation
= Excuses”
I’ve seen this statement uttered a number of
times recently, by a variety of characters.
I’ve seen atheists use this when trying to promote their interpretation of
a seemingly embarrassing section of scripture.
I’ve also seen self-identified believers say this to promote faulty
theology using the so-called, “plain meaning” of a text. Is it really true that everything in the
Bible should be taken literally, as the atheist claims?
I actually would like to answer this
question by sympathizing with the atheist skepticism here. There are a great deal of difficult passages
in the Bible that Christians are far too quick to dismiss as not being
literal. This can lead to suspicion on
the part of the skeptic. If the Bible
can’t be taken literally, then can’t it literally
mean whatever you want it to mean?
If so, then it is literally meaningless.
I think the correct view to take here is in
agreement with the atheist. The Bible
should be taken literally in what it
teaches. However, this does not mean
that we must ignore obvious figurative language that is contained in the
scriptures. Not every word in the Bible is meant to be taken
literally, but every teaching is. The Bible is written in various types of a
literary styles and this effects what a “literal teaching” of the Bible means. Here are some examples:
In
Psalms 94:1, the psalmist writes of God that, “under
his wings you will find refuge.” Taken literally this implies that God has “wings”
and we will find refuge under them. But
clearly the Psalms are poems. Poems by definition
are full of figurative language. God
does not have wings. Yet there is absolutely
a literal truth here. There is something
about God and our relationship with him, that is like a bird who covers her
chicks with her wings for protection.
Our job is to interpret what literal
truth this figurative language
tries to convey.
How about something a little more difficult? In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist speaking
of Jesus says,
“I
baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is
mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
I have heard people teach that the “fire”
John says Jesus will baptize with is figurative for some kind of cleansing
power that his baptism will have, and it may be so. But do we have good reason to believe this?
As it happens, the word “fire” is used
in both the preceding and following verses, both times referring to literal
fire as part of a larger figure of speech.
10“Even now the axe is laid to the root
of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for
repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I
am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his
hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
It seems to me that the “fire” in verse
11 is possibly a figure. But the idea
that it represents some kind of “cleansing power” of the baptism is foreign to
the text, and I think is an inappropriate attempt to soften what John is
saying. The “fire” in both verse 10 and
12 is referring to a destruction of something undesirable; fruitless trees in
verse 10, and chaff in verse 12. We have
every reason to believe that the “fire” that Jesus will baptize with according
to verse 11 is a similar kind of destruction of something undesirable. Verse 11 talks about Jesus coming to the
world to baptize. Some will be baptized
with the Holy Spirit. (Believers) Others
will be baptized with fire that may very well be literal. (Un-believers)
As you can see, coming to this
conclusion did require a degree of interpretation. This is called hermeneutics. But does this process of interpretation mean
that you do not assume a literal meaning?
No. We should assume a literal
meaning unless there is good reason not to.
As someone who reads the Bible, whether a believer or skeptic, you should
have a hermeneutical approach that is careful not to read into a text that
which is not there. This may mean that
you will have think carefully about how things are worded. This is part of what it is to read an ancient
text. It takes a certain amount of work,
but if literal meaning is to be ascertained, it is necessary.
Atheists tend to read all kinds of
meaning into the Bible that really isn’t there.
Especially when it comes to the Old Testament. The best approach to take when encountering this
objection, is to just agree:
Yes the Bible should be taken literally
in what it teaches. But we have to
interpret what it teaches through careful examination. This interpretation cannot be arbitrary and
often times take work. Interpretation is
not “excuses”. It is just an honest approach to
understanding. Sound interpretation is a
critical element of any kind of real knowledge be it scientific, historical or
spiritual.
No comments:
Post a Comment