Stop Taking the Bible Literally
Go ahead. Make a lunch date with a good friend and for half an hour speak only what you literally mean to say. You can't say you have a million things to do unless you can actually tally that many. You may not refer to a suit costing and arm and a leg unless there is a surgeon at the checkout. You can't order "the usual," unless that's the name of a sandwich on the menu. You get the idea.
When you are finished, you will also get the idea that speaking that way is not only difficult, it is extremely limiting. "I have a million things to do today," is technically a falsehood. I doubt even if I counted my footsteps I would come up with a million. But it is giving information that is nevertheless true and important: I may only have three things to do today, but I'm tired and they are demanding tasks, and I feel so overwhelmed that it feels like a million things.
It is not a question of truth or falsehood, it is a question of depth and insight and the larger truths that can only be conveyed through non-literal speech--metaphor, simile, hyperbole, poem, story.
This has a religious application. Do not take every word of the Bible literally. That is not defending truth. That is defending silliness, shallowness, and something that is ultimately indefensible. I used to treat the Bible that way in my teens and early twenties. It was a mistake and, ever since writing Blowing the Lid Off the God-Box, I have been trying to prevent others from making the same mistake I made. I was well-meaning, as most of the literalists I meet today are. But we can be both faithful and well-meaning and also be wrong in harmful and damaging ways.
People do not speak literally, except maybe for Mr. Spock. They never have. They did not speak literally in the time of Abraham, in the time of David, in the time of Isaiah, or in the time of Jesus. It has always been mixed. The Bible isn't about people sitting around in a vacuum speaking ultimate truth for all time. It is about real people and messy lives and ancient cultures that had their own ways of conveying more than the literal truth about what was happening to them.
Even Jesus gets frustrated with those who take his every word literally. Remember Nicodemus in John 3? Jesus offers a metaphorical description of a person's spiritual awakening--he says we must be "born again." Nicodemus, an educated man who was part of the ruling political body of the time, says, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" You can just see Jesus banging his head against a wall. He finally says to Nicodemus, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?"
Or then there's the time when Jesus is out on the lake with his disciples and he warns them about the "yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matt. 16:5-12) The disciples think he's mad at them for forgetting to bring bread. Another head-banging moment for Jesus. He says to them, "How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread?" Jesus wants disciples who can communicate in more than just a literal fashion.
Now that is not to say that we should take nothing literally. This morning when I said I was "spinning my wheels," I did not mean the usual metaphor of doing a lot for little effect. I meant it has been snowing all morning and my car wheels are literally spinning trying to get out of the driveway. It would be equally silly to interpret all human speech as metaphor. Real people do both depending on personality, context, audience, and a million other things--well, maybe not a million...
The Bible records all of this and relies on us to come to it with all of our faculties turned on. It is not dumbed down for us. God did not color-code the text to show which phrases are idiomatic expressions, which stories are fables that teach a moral rather than a literal accounting of history, which laws apply only in a given historical context and which are universal statements about God or about the human condition. We are expected to do our homework--to bring our brains as well as our faith to the text and to recognize that, even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our understanding will necessarily be limited.
Saying we take the Bible literally is also hypocritical, except in the rarest of cases. For example, people love to condemn homosexuality with Leviticus 20:13 which stipulates the death penalty for a man who "lies with a male as with a woman." If you're taking it all literally, then please be sure to include Leviticus 20:10 that orders the death penalty for adulterers or Leviticus 20:9 that extends the death penalty to those who curse their father or mother. It's all within five verses, you don't have to go too far. Literal is literal, right? Those would be the real "death panels."
I've been condemned very frequently for being a woman minister because 1 Timothy 2:12 says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." Fine and dandy. And do you also actively enforce 1 Timothy 2:9, "the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, perals, or expensive clothes?" It's just three verses away--again, you don't have to look far. I can't tell you how many well-coiffed, gold-bedecked women have told me I have no right to preach. Oh, and I almost forgot, no linen and wool blend clothing according to Deuteronomy 22:11.
If you want to play literal, however, I'll have to insist that everyone adhere to Leviticus 19:34, "The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself." If you insist that homosexuality is sin and that women can't be ministers because, "The Bible says so," then undocumented workers need to get all the benefits of citizenship. The Bible happens to demand that, too. Just sayin...
I refuse to have a sterile faith that can only speak in facts. I tried it and it made me not only hypocritical, but caused me to miss at least half of the real truths that the Bible was trying to convey. But once I learned that truth and facts were different things, the Bible became so much more "true" than it ever was to me before. Literalism is a prison to which I will not return. Get out while you can. The Truth will set you free.



1
coach factory outlet (not verified) wrote:
coach factory outlet uses graceful accessories to match the classical logo of coach, which is the best combination of coach. The handmade coach products?can make you more charming and graceful.coach factory online are loved by many people, when you walk in the street, you could see many people take coach styles.
2
hermes birkin bags (not verified) wrote:
Max Mara showcased hermes birkin bags their new fall accessories last week and we at Butterboom like what we see.We love the new Margaux Top Handle bag which is a new travel case version of Hermes Birkin 40cm and is hermes handbags just as sophisticated and elegant, made of shiny calfskin, crocodile and rhino printed leather.Celine Winter bag is a a stripped down modern take of the doctor hermes birkin bags with a body made of bonded shiny calf material. Given Phoebe Philo penchant for clean lines
hermes birkin handbags is our favourite Mulberry offering for Fall 2011 for its versatility, two fake push clasps (depending on the model),Hermes Birkin 35cm different textured leather and dark sombre shades.
3
Pamela (not verified) wrote:
Scripture is not up for private interpretation. It is to be understood as God intends, whether it be literally, or allegorically. I guess you'll just have to give up self sufficient human reason and lean on Him, which may mean stumbling around in the dark sometimes until He brings you into the correct understanding. Those who have the Holy Spirit will indeed be brought into the light, eventually. You shall be known by the fruit you bring forth. Unregenerate man will get everything bass ackwards, calling allegorical what is intended to be literal, and calling literal what is intended to be allegorical. Most importantly, what will you do with Jesus? Is He literally the Son of God, or some allegorical Christ Consciousness? And what about the Resurrection? Is it literally rising from the dead, or some allegorical raising of consciousness? Was Jesus literally nailed to a cross? Get it wrong and you're in danger of a literal judgement. Sincerely pray for God to guide you into all truth.
4
NewOldSalt (not verified) wrote:
Some people calling themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door. Instead of asking me any questions to figure out where I am on my journey they began to tell me of the infallibility of scripture, that it was all true and maybe they even said it was literal.
So I asked them if they were familiar with King Solomon. Yes. I asked them if they’d read Ecclesiastes. Yes. Then I asked them if they recalled what Solomon says “meaningless,” or “vain,” (depending on translation) a few dozen times; saying that all of life is meaningless. Yes, they’d read that. So I emphasized it a bit more to make it perfectly clear that Solomon thought life in the past, life during his time, and all future life was completely and utterly meaningless. Yes that was pretty clear in Ecclesiastes.
So next I asked them if they thought Jesus would say that life is meaningless and everything we do is in vain? Well, of course Jesus wouldn’t say that.
They didn’t want to come in then, but said they would come by later in the week. They didn’t come.
I’m glad Anne pointed out one time when Jesus challenged Nicodemus. Here is a time when he challenged everyone’s understanding and clinging to taking their scriptures literally.
In Matthew 5:38-48 Jesus challenged two sayings from Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy, namely the ‘eye for eye’ and ‘hate your enemies’ sayings. One could even say he told his fellow Jews to break those laws. Jesus told people to NOT follow those laws, but to follow updated versions of those laws.
And of course there was the time when he did his best to keep the woman caught in the act form being stoned. In my reading of the text I think the Pharisees were not about to stone her, but were confounded by their own laws.
So this leads to a few questions. Were the OT laws goofed around with intentionally over the years, i.e. to satisfy a particular leader or group of people who were currently in power and wanted a “legitimate” means to crush those they didn’t like? Or were the scriptures not inspired in the first place?
5
NewOldSalt (not verified) wrote:
How is it that fallible humans can write perfectly? How can fallible humans edit and translate perfectly? How can fallible humans pick and choose between hundreds of scrolls — all of which claim to be the flawless and inspired word of God when some probably aren’t — and assemble them into one collection?
Should which ones are considered canon be up for vote? Isn’t that how it has been handled in the past? Or should just one person make the decision then burn all the other books he doesn’t like, seems to me I saw that in a PBS documentary on the early church.
And what about the fact the Roman Catholic Bible varies from what most Protestants read? To take the stance that the Bible is perfect and without error means that either the RC’s have a big problem or the Protestants do.
And how does one explain Jeremiah 8:8 where he clearly says the teachers of the law and scribes have corrupted it? Should we really think that only applies to their teachings and not making new copies of scripture with additions, “corrections,” and omissions? I don’t think so, I think it clearly means those people goofed around with the texts.
We see a hint of this in Isaiah 28 ~ v10-13. The leaders are addicted to trying to control others, so the pour on rule up on rule upon rule. We see this today. From what I hear the tax code is a few hundred times the size of the Bible. It’s contradiction on top of contradiction on top of loophole on top of loophole.
Legislators constantly pass bills that violate our Founding Documents, judges regularly make exceptions to the Constitution based on those lies which obfuscate and corrupt our Founding Documents.
When it speaks of the priests and prophets staggering drunk, I would say that not only can it be taken literally, but I am sure it is metaphorical as well; to this day we have people who are drunk on power. People who feel they are so perfect they must “save us” by creating the biggest prison system in world history and putting insane numbers of people in them. These are the descendants of the inquisitors who tortured people to save them, burned them at the stake to save their souls.
People who can’t let others live their own lives and make up their own minds.
What did Jesus do at the temple? Did he use a whip to force people inside? No. He told parables and sayings, things to make them think.
People who say everything in the Bible is true and literal are using a crutch and going in the wrong direction. It is a complete turning off of one’s mind to say everything in there is true, not an act of faith. God wants faith in God, God does not want idol worship. And saying the Bible is perfect is idol worship.
6
Annette (not verified) wrote:
Well said, Anne!
7
Steve (not verified) wrote:
Anne has a legitimate beef against hypocracy. Many who insist on others obeying the law fail to obey other parts of it themselves. But just because others are hypocrites does not excuse me from sin. Or does it ?
8
pivboy2 wrote:
9
Doogie (not verified) wrote:
I would caution against the idea of "deciding" what is metaphor or fact etc. I would approach it as a discernment - careful study of the context of scripture in its historical and narrative settings is a place to begin. It can be a long, but worthwhile process.
10
Anonymous (not verified) wrote:
I understand your argument, but I have an issue with it. If man can decide what is fact and what is fable or allegorical or metaphorical, then can man not decide any thing in the Bible fits one of these categories?
In my reading of the Bible, Jesus used parables to instruct and teach his disciples. That He used parables is clearly stated, so it does not require anyone to take them "literally" but rather to treat them as parables. Jesus also said He used parables so that those who were not meant to understand would not understand (Matt. 13: 10-17).
As for Old Testament scripture, Jesus came to fulfill the law. But the law He came to fulfill was satisfied when He died on the cross as a man. By rising again, He conquered death so that anyone who believes He is the Son of God and repents of his sin has satisfied the law in every sense of the word. So the law of Leviticus was and still is valid in the sense of when it was given. It is just not applicable to anyone who has acepted Christ and been truly converted. That the law was literal cannot be in doubt.
Paul says that homosexuality is a sin (Rom. 1: 26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9). So to try to justify viewing homosexuality in any way except as sin by only referring to the Old Testament is disingenuous. Jesus did not say we would not sin after being saved. He said we must repent of our sins. If we decide something is not sin that God's word says is sin, I find it hard to cateorize that as repentance.
There are many things I do not understand in the Bible. Some things I do understand. If God says it was sin, it is sin. That does not mean a person cannot be saved. But to willfully continue in sin seems to me to be a dangerous path to tread.
11
Rev.Allan Taylor (not verified) wrote:
Yes, but you have certainly not addressed or answered Ann's main point......namely that whilst we often accept some parts of the Bible as the word of God.....e.g. that homosexuality is a sin......we do not accept other parts......e.g. that women should not wear gold or even expensive clothes.......of course we might debate what is meant by expensive but I think we all have a pretty good idea what it means.
And what about the plucking out of eyes in Matthew's gospel......is that to be taken literally or is it hyperbole on Jesus' part.....I don't see much plucking out of eyes amongst the brethren!
Is it not significant that Jesus himself never even spoke about homosexuality? He had little to say about heterosexuality either. In fact, he seemed far more concerned with 'loving our neighbour', with justice and with how we spend our money. As for those who will be saved.......what do we think about his parable of the sheep and the goats....and the criteria laid down there that the sheep are those who visit the sick, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless etc.
Allan