Christians deal with the Bible in different ways. This is a value-free statement. Often the view of the Bible is so naturally embedded in the ideas of one’s own community that it is not questioned. This article is about the assumption that the Bible should be understood literally. How should we understand this?
First of all, I would like to define my own position. Do I take the Bible seriously? Yes. Does this mean I read everything “literally”? No. The distinction is important. I want to deal with the Bible authentically, with genuine and honest questions and with a lot of curiosity about the text. I don’t know what “literally” means or is supposed to mean. The word is vague and cannot be found in the Bible. So we are not dealing here with a way of looking at things that is taught in the Bible. Anyone who wants to read the Bible “literally” is part of a certain tradition. Am I now in your tradition and do we speak the same language of Canaan? I do not know. However, we may have the same desire: to learn to understand the Bible better without being rushed into traditional answers from our own community.
How do you or I read the Bible? I authentically state two things: I take the Bible seriously and I don’t read everything literally. Of course, this does not explain all one can think of. What do I mean by the Bible? Do I mean the translation or the basic text? And what does “authentic” mean? Is that just my opinion or is it what I can understand today? If we think differently, what does that mean? And what does “take seriously” mean? Similar reservations apply to the term “literal”, which some people like to use to describe their view of the Bible. Without an explanation, it is unclear what is meant by this. It would be very interesting at this point to find out how everyone describes their relationship to this Bible. I suspect that there are at least as many views as there are people.
Here’s the challenge: if we don’t talk about these words, we hide behind word structures, traditions and blind assumptions. That doesn’t help. That is why I want to address here what a “literal interpretation” of the Bible says about one’s own understanding.
Benchmark of the “correct belief”?
“Taking the Bible literally” is not only a matter of course for many Christians, mainly of the evangelical variety, but it is also something of a distinguishing mark. If you take the Bible literally, according to this idea, then you belong. “Literal interpretation” is an identifying mark, a code word for orthodoxy. This word therefore has an important function. It is the flag that everyone looks to, a clear point in the landscape that you can use for orientation.
Those who take the Bible literally are part of a certain tradition of interpretation and not only confess that the Bible is a standard for them, but also that the interpretation is understood “literally”. The term “literal” stands for a particularly pious and truthful interpretation of the Bible. As a consequence, this naturally means that one absolutely understands, interprets, and trusts the Bible as “real” truth. You add yourself to the list of all-time heroes of faith, but show through absolute assumptions that you have perhaps nevertheless fallen prey to an ideology.
Believing the Bible literally can therefore be an expression of an ideological conviction and does not necessarily have to be an expression of more faith or a better understanding of the Bible. If this caveat is true, you have achieved exactly the opposite of what you intended. Oops!
Literally or figuratively?
Some will say they take the Bible “literally”, which should denote a particularly neutral, true and faithful presentation of biblical statements. But how do you measure that? I notice again and again that a so-called literal interpretation is often only intended to confirm certain teachings and ideas instead of actually questioning the text. This is different from a curious, open and open-ended investigation. The latter is often perceived as threatening, which makes the ideological imprint crystal clear.
Where emphasis is placed on literal interpretation, the term like “faithful to the Bible” is often used. So if someone considers themselves to be “faithful to the Bible”, it is quite likely that they consider their own interpretation of the Bible to be “literal”. The use of these terms perhaps says more about belonging to a particular Christian subculture than about the actual type of exegesis.
As previously mentioned, these terms are meaningless. You have to explain them. It can easily be misunderstood. Here are some examples:
- Paul to Timothy
When the apostle Paul writes his letters to Timothy (1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2), and I interpret this “literally”, then it is not a message for me, but only for Timothy. A Christian who believes “literally” should then consistently say: “Hands off these letters!”. But nobody will interpret it that way. It is by no means taken literally. - The book of Revelation
In the book of Revelation, John writes that he was “in the Spirit in the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10). This is strongly reminiscent of an Old Testament expression, the “Day of the Lord”. In other words, he may be describing a vision of the time that was already known to the prophets as the “Day of the Lord”. He was raptured there in a vision. This is not new, but deepens what was already old. He had seen things in this vision that he wrote down. Everything that can be said about this is to be understood as an interpretation. Some interpret his vision as a reflection of church history, especially the first few chapters on the seven churches. Others interpret his vision as a reflection of his time. Still others interpret these stories as a prophetic outlook on a time to come. In some Bible translations, “in the Lord’s day” is translated as “on Sunday”. All clear? Is this all to be understood “literally”? What exactly is the term “literally” supposed to mean there? Imagine that you could describe what is “literally” there, then you are only confirming your own interpretation. - Ephesians
The letter to the Ephesians is called this because, according to the text, Paul is addressing the believers “who are in Ephesus”. It is clear that the designation “in Ephesus” is missing in the oldest manuscripts, but was scribbled by hand next to the text in the Codex Vaticanus. The words “in Ephesus” are a later addition. The letter was, like many other letters, a circular letter that was to be read by many (compare also Col 4:16). Must or can I now interpret “in Ephesus” literally, or am I creating my own problems?
These few examples could be supplemented by typical language characteristics such as figurative language, poetic language and the like. These do not fulfill the purpose of “literal” reporting, but tell their own story in their own way. The Bible knows figurative language, poetry and other text styles. You can already sense that the word “literally” does not clarify everything, but is meaningless without further explanation. Instead of a blanket statement with real validity, the term “literal interpretation” is applied quite arbitrarily. Those who want to interpret literally proceed selectively. Anyone who thinks that only a literal approach to the Bible does justice to the text is being elitist and self-righteous. That is by no means neutral.
This calls for caution.
Understanding the intention
Those who want to understand the Bible “literally” usually have a laudable intention. We want to “take God at His word” and, like Paul in the storm, not only believe in God, but believe God directly, namely believe Him, i.e. believe what God says (Acts 27:25).
The intention is good. However, this is often not what happens. Interpreting the Bible “literally” usually just means saying that you take your own tradition seriously. Anyone who openly declares this is engaging in authentic dialog. However, if you only argue with an ideological concept of truth, you are merely confirming tradition. This can be recognized by the fact that the Bible can no longer be used for correction. This is a pity, because the biblical text often has more to tell than simplistic ideas can grasp.
To summarize: The intention is good, but the implementation is often inadequate and not neutral. A literal interpretation of the Bible is often not possible, because even where this flag is held up, the approach is not literal but selective.
Drawing conclusions from today to then
If you want to take the Bible literally, you can only do so selectively. That was demonstrated up here. But that is only one side of the coin. There is another side that deserves attention. It is this: Those who want to understand the Bible literally are generally not interested in the context of the time, but rather draw conclusions from today to that time.
In other words, one infers an ancient scripture from today’s understanding, forbids oneself and others to ask about the context at that time, because this allegedly corresponds to unbelief and liberalism, and then interprets the text according to one’s own tradition. One first infers the Bible from oneself, from the present time or from the assumed truth, in order to then interpret the Bible as one has previously defined it.
Example
A typical example is the evangelical view of “homosexuality”: today’s own understanding is projected onto texts from the Bible to then say that the Bible rejects homosexuality. A more nuanced view is dismissed as “liberal” and a value-free examination according to text and (then) context is actively demonized.
Here is the distinction with such insinuations: Can one simply ignore the biblical references? Of course! But here is the uncomfortable reality: not every attempt to read the text in the context of the time is characterized by unbelief, as is implied. And: anyone who examines the text does so in order to get to the bottom of the meaning. This also allows incorrect assumptions to be corrected. That is the danger when you educate yourself. However, this does not mean that you end up with either a traditional view or disbelief. Perhaps the reality is somewhat more colorful and simply different than it is today.
So, if someone deviates from the assumptions of the community, it does not automatically mean that their views are condemnable. It’s easy to turn the tables: Anyone who avoids or demonizes an honest examination of text, context and culture is suspected of not taking the Bible seriously.
The point is this: Asking questions does not mean you have taken a position. He who investigates, investigates. Nothing more. In an environment where people think in black and white opposites, it is particularly difficult to think or say something without immediate judgment. So anyone who makes even a hint of differentiation is immediately accused of the devil’s influence. That doesn’t have to be the case.
Bible interpretation
Note that this is neither an interpretation nor a rejection, I neither approve nor disapprove of anything. I am merely describing mechanisms for dealing with the Bible. I am not judging theology or homosexuality here. I consciously maintain this distance, not out of indifference, but because honest textual work initially requires description, not immediate evaluation. What I stand for is this:
- Read the text in context and
- try to understand the text and context as a “first reader in the context of the time”.
Reading the text in context is the basis of every text interpretation. Taking the original context into account is a sign of respect for the text. Anyone who now cries out and speaks of “God’s eternal word”, which is supposed to apply without context, disregards how the Bible came into being.
It is helpful to look back at the original context, not out of liberalism, but because you take the text seriously. If you do that, you might learn something that you can think about. Not out of disbelief, but out of respect. The Bible text was not written today, but back then. This has meaning.
I advocate a text-immanent interpretation, according to which one then tries to understand what the writer and the first reader meant and understood. That is respect for the text. Anyone who ignores the origin, the first readers and the context of the time, or thinks that “true believers recognize through God’s Spirit what is meant there”, is projecting today’s (religious) assumptions onto the text. That is not helpful.
This “inferring from today to then” is a phenomenon that occurs not only among evangelicals, but also frequently among progressives. They also extrapolate from today to then. They may draw conclusions from their own current perception of an ancient scripture that they have only come to know through the lens of a particular community and tradition. Their own negative experience with this denomination and faith often leads them to discard other possibilities of interpretation, because they equate Scripture with the fundamentalist interpretation. Progressives are in danger of merely changing the tradition, but not the method – they are still projecting from today to then.
I can understand the psychological side of this rejection. What I am trying to point out is something else: the point of view may not be neutral. Of course you can throw everything away. There is nothing to be said against this if it appears to be the only option. But is this an absolute truth, valid for everyone? Evangelicals are often ideological. But progressives often do too. They may have changed camps, but they haven’t really found a new positive position. Would it be worth thinking about?
Evangelicals and progressives alike draw conclusions from the present to the past. You can do that, but you are not doing justice to the biblical text. Anyone who claims that “my understanding is the truth” has at the same time ruled out a differentiated view. Too bad. If I have reservations, this is not a relativization of an “absolute truth”, but a relativization of the self.
Taking the Bible at face value
I am all for reading the Bible seriously, even when it challenges my understanding or that of the community. This allows me to learn. So here is the difference:
- Those who want to take the Bible literally usually mean this in a positive way, but often expect nothing more than an illustration of their own tradition. Countering cherished views with different biblical passages can be unsettling because it might question what we know.
- Anyone who pays attention to the word with curiosity will not always find the tradition confirmed, but can gain a better insight into the text.
The question is therefore whether one considers one’s own traditional assumptions or the biblical text to be more important. If it is the first, then there is no need for any differentiation because you are entrenched in your own assumptions. If it is the second, you can investigate and then classify what you have found in a value-neutral way. This may mark neutrality and sobriety, from which one only arrives at a balanced understanding and perhaps an authentic acceptance of faith. There is a promise here that speaks of experience:
“Whoever pays attention to the word will obtain good things.”
Prov 16:20
This article was linguistically clarified after publication.