Despite our differences in how we approach the Bible, my father once made a statement about Biblical interpretation with which I agree completely. This is what he said: “Everyone knows that some of the Bible is literal and some of it is metaphorical. The problem is deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical.”
Forsooth. And this reality holds significant implications for those who view the Bible as authoritative.
So just how do we decide what kind of reading a text is asking of us? Some passages should be understood as culturally specific. For instance, I have not heard of any church that holds to a completely literal interpretation for “Let the women keep silent in church” (1 Cor. 14:34), or “Provide for widows only if they wash the saints’ feet” (1 Tim. 5:10).
Or, looking at the Old Testament, how do we understand God’s commands to Saul that the Amalekite babies should be killed (1 Samuel 15:3), or to Moses that disobedient Israelite children must be stoned to death (Deut. 21)? Personally, I have yet to find a way to follow the God revealed in Jesus unless I interpret such violent portrayals of God as culturally specific and even unenlightened (“Ye have heard…but I say unto you”).
Also, with some passages a literal interpretation is simply unlikely. Did Isaiah literally go around naked for three years? Did the cows of Nineveh literally repent and wear sackcloth? Did it literally take three days to walk across Nineveh? That would mean Nineveh was 45 miles in circumference. There is no record of any other ancient city approaching even half that size.
Strictly speaking, the issue is not whether a literal interpretation is possible; ours is a magical world home to pregnant male seahorses and frozen methane bubbles. Rather, the issue is whether a literal interpretation exalts a passage to robust literature that speaks perennially to humanity’s deepest needs, or woodenly reduces it to a Veggie Tale.
The point is, interpreting a passage literally does not automatically make us better Christians, or even prove our commitment to Scripture’s authority and veracity.
That said, some conservative Christians probably emphasize biblical literalism because of the vociferous views of hyper-progressive theologians, which is perfectly understandable. But might they be overreacting and shooting themselves in the foot? After all, the ancients were just as capable of conveying truth through hyperbole, allegory and archetypal literature as we are today. As John Dominic Crossan said, “It is not that the ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”
I certainly do not have all the answers for interpreting Scripture, but I will leave for your consideration two points that I have concluded as being generally true.
First, cultivating an awareness of what influences our interpretation is often just as important as our specific sources of authority. Some contend that Scripture interprets itself internally, and this can certainly be true. But I wonder if anyone holds to a uniform Sola Scriptura interpretation method that is independent of reason, church leaders, our own shaping influences, and a knowledge of biblical culture and history. We weight these external factors differently, but I suspect we are all guided by them to some extent.
For instance, Esther and I have two friends, Ben and Jane, who approach the Bible quite differently. For Ben, if the Bible says Noah’s ark was 500 feet long—longer than any other wooden ship on record, ancient or modern—then that is literally what the Bible means. To him the holy grail is taking biblical details “at face value.” He fears that anything else would lead him down a slippery slope to doubting the Resurrection.
Ben points out that Jesus regularly referred to Old Testament characters like Adam, Noah and Jonah. And although Jane would say there are unmistakable literary elements in their stories and names (Adam=humankind; Noah=rest; Jonah=dove), Ben assumes that Jesus must have viewed all or most details as having unfolded literally in human time and space, and naturally he wants to follow Jesus’ lead in everything.
Jane, on the other hand, seeks to familiarize herself with the ancient world, being careful not to co-opt biblical language to fit modern categories. When she reads that Methuselah lived 969 years old, she takes into account that the Mesopotamian numbering system is hard to translate. It was sexagesimal (based on multiples of 60) and regularly used hyperbole and numeric symbolism. Ben counters that this exegetical approach requires too much knowledge of Bible times, but this does not bother Jane. That knowledge is more available today than ever. Whoever has ears, let him hear.
As you probably detected, I favour Jane’s method of interpretation over Ben’s. However, I respect them both because they are equally transparent about what guides them.
Second, people experience transformation despite holding to different hermeneutics. With Jane and Ben, I cannot say that one is a better Christian than the other. Albeit for different reasons, I value and appreciate both of them. I once heard that it is safer to loan out garden tools to a Biblical literalist, but that it is more enjoyable to have a dinnertime conversation with someone who is open to literary or culturally specific interpretations. It is a rather quirky way of putting it, but maybe there is truth in it. Maybe both types have something to teach the other.
At the end of the day, both Jane and Ben are committed to obeying literally several crucial and actionable passages, such as “speak evil of no one” (Titus 3:2); “take every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5); and the Golden Rule from Matthew 7. (Unbeknownst to many Christians, when Jesus spoke of the “strait and narrow way that leads to life,” it was in the context of living out the Golden Rule.)
May I suggest that the task of faithful biblical interpretation is not about forcing a literalist interpretation onto the passages that were never meant to be taken literally. Rather, it is about faithful obedience to the crucial passages that were always meant to be taken literally but usually weren’t.
We are Christians, not biblicists, and it makes sense for us to start by following Christ’s teachings as seriously as possible. It has not escaped the attention of many onlookers that Ken Ham, who starts with treating Genesis 1-11 as scientific and historic fact, has no qualms about filing lawsuits over his Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. Jane and Ben would quickly agree that this is an exercise in missing the point.
In summary, we must not trivialize the literal-metaphorical discussion. Both extremes can stunt human flourishing. Yet the important meaning of a passage is usually found beyond the literal-metaphorical dichotomy amid far nobler themes, such as increased wonder at the “unbearable wholeness of being,” to quote Ilia Delio. Ultimately, the right reading of Scripture leads us to its central message: the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
What are some passages you are unsure about, and what guides you in interpreting them? What are the strengths and weaknesses in how your church interprets Scripture? How do you live peacefully with people who do not share your interpretive methods and assumptions?