How should we interpret Sacred Scripture? A lot of Evangelicals will claim that the Bible *must* be understood literally, in the sense of non-metaphorically. The people claiming this don’t really believe this – simply open up John 6 and see how quickly they wave away Jesus’ words about the Eucharist as a mere “symbol” – but it’s a common enough claim that a lot of people assume that the Bible must teach it somewhere. There is a sense in which the Bible should be read “literally” (using the older sense of the word literal), but this isn’t it. To give you an example of a particularly poor way of understanding Scripture, I offer the Protestant website GotQuestions?, which claims:
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. [….] One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.
To claim that literalism “is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us” means that God is only allowed to communicate with us literally. The author gives absolutely no biblical support for this claim – it’s just an imposition being imposed upon God.
It’s unclear to me how the author gets from “Jesus quotes Scripture in response to Satan” to “therefore the whole Bible is literal.” After all, it was Satan who took a ridiculous and overly-literalistic interpretation of Psalm 91:12 (see Luke 4:11), and Jesus was having none of it. And even if some parts of the Bible are literal (which everyone concedes), how does that show that all parts of the Bible are literal?
Strangely, after claiming that everything must be understood literally, he goes on to say that some parts shouldn’t be:
There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
In the span of a pretty short article, the author asserts that (1) the Bible can only be understood if taken literally; (2) that some parts aren’t meant to be taken literally; (3) that it’s easy to tell which parts are literal and which are figures of speech; and (4) that anyone claiming to know which parts are literal and which are figures of speech is placing themselves above the Bible.
What a mess of contradictions. If God can only communicate with us literally, why are there figures of speech in the Bible? And if “we elevate ourselves above God” when we say which parts are and aren’t literal, how can we know which parts are figures of speech and which aren’t?
So how should we understand Scripture, and what is the sense in which we can speak of the need to interpret Scripture “literally”? For that, you’ll have to read my article for Catholic Answers: “How to Literally Read Scripture Literally.”
My favorite verses to show evangelicals who think they follow the Bible literally:
“A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:20-24).
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:20-21).
“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John 6:54)
“Not one of all the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (Joshua 21:43-45).*
*Bonus for the End Time folks. 😉
Those are good.
Others that come to mind:
Ps 40:31
But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Ps 91:4
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Mt. 18:8-9
8
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
This is only a strawman becauae nobody actually says all parts of the bible are literal.
Nobody says it? Got questions actually says it in the quote and then contradicts itself.
No Strawman there!!
Should we take the Vatican II documents literally? Declaring an infallible clownesterium is just kicking the can down the road.
What’s your take on Francis force-resigning Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres for not bowing down and worshipping the idol Baal Covid?
Also is your blog based in Russia or something? Why is it having such a hard time loading?
Joe you have a good essay but evangelicals are not biblical literalists for the most part. Catholics are far more literal about scripture interpretation than they are. Be particularly careful not to assume that their use of words matches what is in the dictionary.
Take the Baptists for example, you might think that they baptize as we do but this is not so. They are actually anabaptist. In order to get around the many verses which describe baptism as regenerative and necessary they say it is simply giving “testimony”. This illustrates what all the fuss over “faith alone” really comes down to. They actually have very little faith in that a reductionist approach is used to deal with doctrines too hard to accept. This twist is then called a literal or plain sense interpretation.
If you think that I am being unfair ,then be advised that “I got saved out of the Southern Baptists ” (LOL) back in 1971 .
This is a good point. Baptists only take the Calvinistic sounding passages literally, and things without ehich Calvinism would die (literal Adam and Eve). But anything about baptism being commanded or necessary becomes an allegory for how if you get baptized you’ll go straight to hell for trusting in works.
How about that consecration of Russia, Ukraine, and all humanity by Francis to the nonsacred heart of pachamama?
For me, the Bible must be the true literal word of God. I understand there are translation errors as the Greek and Hebrew is translated to different languages. But, no one has convinced me that the errors have changed the path to salvation. If the Bible is corrupt, as the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses teach, then it is worthless, and should be trashed.
All churches are just too corrupt for me to believe that God would use them as an instrument of truth of His word. If the Bible has been corrupted down through the centuries, so has the churches. That would mean God has left humanity with no means of salvation. Simply put, I believe a just God would provide a true message of His saving grace, and the churches are too evil for me to have faith in them.
I admit there are a few verses that teach a works justified path to salvation. But, there are 112 verses that teach faith alone. So, do we discard the 112 verses, or do we investigate the handful of verses that seem to stray? Paul taught faith alone, and so did John the Apostle.
My favorite passage in The Bible to confound wooden literalism is Psalms 57:4.
“I lie in the midst of lions that greedily devour the sons of men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongues sharp swords.”
Note: It does not say their teeth are LIKE spears and arrows, but rather that they ARE spears and arrow. Same thing with the tongues. Some mighty strange beasts out there in Literal Land.
What is the point of the rhetorical question since you rely on the Pope and his curia to tell you the meaning of Scripture, rather than the Holy Spirit as Christ told the Apostles would occur?
1. Rome doesn’t dictate each and every passage of Scripture and each and every way to apply it to one’s life. It just sets up guard rails when they’re necessary. Because
2. Many learned and righteous men of good will in all denominations can’t even agree on what it takes to be saved. Once saved always saved vs working in fear and trembling. The sacremental, salvific roles of communion and baptism vs symbolic ordinances. No matter how set apart we might be through grace or how much time we devote to Scriptural study we will come to different conclusions if we base everything on our own feelings about what any given passage means. Perspicuity of Scripture is false, history and modern observation makes that clear