HS #103 2024.2.8
Taking the Bible Literally
I once heard a West Michigan minister challenge his listeners to recite the Apostles’ Creed without crossing their fingers behind their backs. His point: Biblical truth should be taken literally and believed fully.
I found myself wondering what he thought of the Creed’s phrase, “he (Jesus) is seated at the right hand of the Father.” Does the Father HAVE a right hand? If Jesus were sitting at the Father’s right side, wouldn’t that mean that the Father has a body?
Most everyone would quickly explain, “Of course not – that phrase is not meant to be taken literally. It means perhaps that Jesus has honor and authority.” Agreed. That’s my point. So we are not meant to understand that phrase literally. But doesn’t this immediately raise the question: What other phrases of the Apostles Creed were also meant to be read figuratively rather than literally? Descended into Hell? Born of a virgin? On the third day he rose again? We are not told by the authors which statements of the Creed they meant us to read literally and which they intended us to understand figuratively. Seems clear that there are some of each, but how to determine what the authors intended? Room for disagreement.
So much for creeds, what about the Bible itself?
Likely everyone would agree that when Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9) he was not claiming that his body had hinges and a knob. However, when he said, “This is my blood” there IS disagreement as to whether he was intending to be understood literally or figuratively. Roman Catholicism maintains that the wine does in fact become blood. But even though believed to be blood, Catholics (as I understand) agree that it is possible to feel the effects of alcohol if too much is taken. Obviously, there are matters to be worked out.
My father once noted that Jesus actually chided the Jewish religious leaders of his day for taking scripture too literally. Because of the prophecy that Elijah would return before the Messiah, they believed that Jesus could not be the Messiah. Jesus countered that Elijah HAD returned in the person of John the Baptist who, like Elijah, had lived a solitary life in the wilderness. That is, they were taking the prophecy too literally by expecting Elijah.
How did Matthew intend us to understand his Christmas story which describes the Wisemen following the star until it came to rest over the house where Jesus lay? Anyone who looks into the night sky realizes that this description can’t be taken literally. Nothing in the distant heavens can appear to “stop” over a particular location on earth.
Granted, we get warm and cozy at Christmas when reading it as a nice story. As with other examples (such as the sun standing still) they work as long as we don’t try too hard to make sense of them. However, Matthew’s Christmas account otherwise reads as if it was meant to be taken literally. It is specific and detailed. Matthew’s writing reminds one of a modern motion picture – such as Lord of the Rings – where it’s not clear where the real-life stops and the computer imaged animation begins. And perhaps like watching a movie, we are missing the point by asking such questions rather than just getting wrapped up in the story.
But as with the Creed, once it’s understood that some scriptural passages are not meant to be taken literally, it raises the question, “Then how do we know which is which?” Good point. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t relieve us of the obligation of trying to discern. Most things in life are not as simple and easy as we might wish. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, a table and chair seem simple. But don’t tell that to a physicist. The atoms and molecules which constitute simple objects are still being studied.
At the opening convocation of Hope College in Fall 1999, Professor Charles Green challenged the first-year students not to fall into the trap of thinking that the world is simple and easily understood, but neither that it’s hopeless to understand. We must work at it. Wise advice – I’ve passed that on to my students ever since. It certainly applies to Biblical hermeneutics.
Bottom line: When deciding what portions of the Bible are meant to be understood literally, as in most everything else in life, there is room for honest disagreement. Sincere folk can come to different conclusions.
