The Bible tells stories

One characteristic of the Bible is that its stories are anchored in history. As a result, they take place in our world. It has to do with us, or at least with human history. This is precious and needs to be considered. Because the Bible is anchored in history, some conclude that “therefore” everything must be something like journalistic reporting. One concludes that “therefore” everything took place “literally”, to the exclusion of other possible explanations. This is problematic.

The Bible tells stories, not because of the story, but so that a message can be conveyed. This message is never “being literal true”. It’s about something else. If something actually is factual true, it supports the message, but factuality cannot replace the message. Those who base their understanding of the Bible on “literalness” may have a hard time with this assessment. If there is an outcry now, it is usually because the reverse conclusion is immediately drawn that “therefore” nothing is true anymore. But that is not the case.

When it comes to interpretation, many assume that the Bible is reliable. However, this reliability is often only seen in one aspect, namely “literalness”. But that is a narrow view that does not do justice to the text. It is assumed a priori that “divinity” arises from “literalness”. The doctrine of verbal inspiration then contributed to the fact that people listened more to the letter than to the spirit. This was already a problem in the days of Paul (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Bible tells stories that take place in history. But can this also happen for reasons other than “literalness”?

All stories are true

Here is the differentiation: All stories are true, even if parts of the story are not “objectively verified facts”. Take the creation story in the first verses of the Bible, for example. Anyone who says on the basis of this story that the world was created in 6 days, and sees this as days of 24 hours, stands in a tradition of “literalness”. However, no human being was present at the creation. God also asked Job this directly: “Where were you when I founded the earth? Make it known, if you have insight!” (Job 38:4).

Nobody was there. No one can prove this. Now ask yourself how Moses comes to this story, which we find in the first chapter of the Bible? It is not journalistic reporting. Nor is it a scientific explanation of all the details. I can hold on to that without stress, even if I say at the same time: “The Bible is reliable and true”.

The point is this: stories are written with a purpose. All the books of the Bible were written with one goal in mind. The goal is already described in the first verse of the Bible:

“In a beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Gen 1,1

God has something to do with this world. If we read the chapter in full, the creation of this world is described in such a way that a connection is made between this world, on which we walk, and God, who created this world. The world is our home, and God has something to do with it. This is how history speaks to us. It is not journalistic reporting, nor is it a scientific treatise.

Everything in this story is true, within the framework of the story and in accordance with the purpose for which this story is written. The questions “why” and “what for” are essential for understanding. “Literalness”, on the other hand, does not give light because it fulfills neither a goal nor a task.

Literalness is not always so clear. The Bible mentions numbers, for example. Some numbers seem to be accurately counted, for example in this report:

“And the silver of those who were mustered of the congregation amounted to a hundred talents and 1775 shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.”
Ex 38,25

Other numbers may have a more symbolic meaning:

“And the Syrians fled from Israel, and David killed seven hundred of the Syrians’ charioteers and forty thousand horsemen.”
2Sam 10:18

The fact that exactly 700 chariot fighters and exactly 40,000 horsemen were killed in the battle seems implausible. It cannot be ruled out, but it would be equally acceptable for these figures to be estimates. We understand this without giving it much thought. Language has this possibility. To this day, the numbers of victims in armed conflicts are initially estimated and rarely absolute or even verified. It would be “about” 700 and 40000. This is an indication of history, even if it is not an absolute and historically ratified figure. Maybe there were a few less, maybe a few more. This does not detract from the story. Figures are also presented in a simplified form using figurative language:

“What man among you, having 100 sheep and having lost one of them, does not leave the 99 in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it?”
Luke 15:4

The reference to “100 sheep” is symbolic. The simple figure supports the visual language. Of course, everyone understands straight away that this story is not dependent on a historically proven and exact figure.

True or not true?

These few examples can illustrate that the Bible remains true if it is understood as a story told in a lively way that pursues a goal in its message. But it is precisely the goal of biblical stories that is often left out of consideration.

The challenge now lies here: If we assume for the time being that “literalness” is the only criterion, then the view of the Bible’s purpose remains largely hidden from us. It’s like when you see a car in front of you but just want to check whether the mudguard on the front wheel is actually made of sheet metal. This ignores the fact that the car is bigger than the mudguard and that the material of the front mudguard is not really important for the function of the vehicle.

I can already hear another outcry that I supposedly think the truth is irrelevant. This has often happened to me in conversation. A differentiation is appropriate. When I read the Bible and want to know “why and for what purpose” it was written, I don’t end up with a literalism. I end up with the message of why and for what purpose these stories were told. I can understand that people want to exclude the Bible to be just “fairy tales”, but literalism alone is not enough. I still fail to see why it is in the Bible.

However, if you adjust your own perspective so that you first question the text with curiosity, the text can begin to speak for itself. This text was first written in its own context. This context is not our current understanding. The context of the text is to be sought in the time and situation in which the text was written. This context, if we learn to read carefully, is contained in the biblical text. This is not always immediately clear to us. We can at least become aware of this.

Other things, however, are understood to be historically proven. For example, the resurrection. Of course, there are different opinions on this. Not everyone believes in a resurrection. In the story of the New Testament, however, the resurrection becomes the core of the message. Whatever I think of the Bible, I can accept that words and events in the biblical narrative have meaning. Before the resurrection, resurrection was not an issue. After that, however, yes. This can be investigated. It was firmly assumed that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place, and Paul takes the doubts of some as an opportunity to hold on to the resurrection and the making alive of Jesus precisely as the basis of the gospel and as the foundation stone for the work of God (1 Corinthians 15). If this does not agree with my own understanding, it can still stand on its own as a testimony. I can then deal with that.

Interpretation and meaning

We find meaning in our lives and in this world through interpretation. People in the Bible have interpreted and therefore found meaning. We too are called upon to interpret our lives, often out of inner necessity. The Bible can help us to find meaning. It doesn’t work without interpretation. However, we can try to let the text speak for itself without trying to impose our own thoughts on the foreground.

If literalness was not a concern of the biblical stories (check the context), the story is still true. She wants to help us recognize something. If this succeeds, the truth is recognized. This is not a task of literalness or truth, but the recognition of the task of the text.

That is why you can always take the text seriously if you ask what the aim of these statements is. Like the Beroeans, one can also examine the Scriptures daily “to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:10-11). Anyone who does this examines whether the stories are coherent in themselves. This shapes your own understanding, outlook and confidence. You are in a place where the Bible is taken seriously. One examines whether it proves itself in the context of Scripture (whether the proclamation is correct) and can then draw valuable insights from it for one’s own life and that of the community. It is read, interpreted and then given meaning.

All stories are true, even if they didn’t happen. This is the case when the goal of the story is not “literalness”, but fulfills a purpose. The message is true and remains true, even if it contains imagery, oriental storytelling or time-bound aspects. Anyone who sweeps all this off the table with the assertion that “the Bible is eternal truth because everything is literal” is cordially invited to learn to read the Bible in its own light.