There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.
Todd follows this with some preaching, but I am honestly not sure which parts he is taking issue with. At any rate, this paragraph seems pretty benign to me and serves as a good launching pad for my questions about literalness and inerrancy. It seems to me from talking to Todd (a committed inerrant), that the literalness of the Bible becomes a fundamental componenet of his view of the Bible as inerrant.
When it comes to a story like Noah and his ark, I would argue that a person may legitimately claim to believe in the Bible even if the absolute literalness of the story is in question. Did all animals have to fit on an ark 6 thousand years ago in order for the Bible to be God's word? I say no, since I believe in the Bible and yet maintain that the Noah story is absurd if taken in absolute literalness. However, it seems that the whole point of claiming inerrancy is to say that the story is literally true in every aspect. If inerrants allow for other interpretations, they lose the concreteness that is at the heart of their view of the Bible.
So, it seems to me that inerrancy requires strict literalness. But this is where my questions start to pile up. What are we to make of a scripture like this one from our Lord Jesus Christ:
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:29)
If you really take the Bible so literally, why haven't you plucked even a single eye out of its socket? Am I to believe you've never been offended by thine right eye? Or do you simply lack the faith to follow the teachings of Jesus?
17 comments:
hyperbole . . .
But I don't think hell is a hyperbole.
Yes, but there's the rub Todd. Jonah is obviously satire so it is fine for me to discount its historicity, right? Or are you the ultimate authority on what is satire/hyperbole and what is not?
How are such determinations to be made except by historical and text critical analysis which is exactly what inerrants despise and reject. Quite a heart issue...
wow, slam. good point on the hyperbole. who is this Todd person?
oops, one more question. was that comment about hell tongue in cheek, i.e., a little hint about your current path?... :)
Maren,
As for who Todd is, see the first post on this blog and you can follow it to his blog for more. Todd is an evangelical pastor who I have met through blogging. The comments on this post are a fine example of why conversations with Todd often go nowhere, but I try from time to time anyway. FWIW, I didn't take Todd's comment to be tongue in cheek.
Many modern theologians insist on what they call a ‘literal’ reading of the entire Bible. This view is propounded through an erroneous belief that if we do not take the Bible literally, then we are in some way threatening the premise of scriptural inerrancy.
Proponents of literalism (esp. Dispensationalists) argue that applying a spiritual interpretation undermines the authority of scripture, especially with regard to the prophecies of the Bible that relate to the earthly people of God; Israel, and his heavenly people; the church. Literalists argue that the prophecies and promises of the Bible which relate to Israel correspond to (national) Israel as a distinct people with a literal identity and history, and therefore whatever scriptural promises refer to her must be equally literal in nature. The literalist hermeneutic follows the reasoning that "if the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted, they must always be taken in their literal meaning, unless this proves to be impossible".
However, In order to properly evaluate the dispensational hermeneutic of literalism, it becomes necessary to precisely define what is meant by 'a literal reading' of the Bible. An historical event, like the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael, is literally true, but also contains further meaning and significance (Gal. 4:23-31), which requires a spiritual
interpretation.
In the case of the prophetic books of the Bible, literalist theologians insist that we reach the ground of absolute literalness (hyper-literalism), in which the prophetic figures of the the Bible invariably find a literal fulfilment. With absolute literalism, not a single instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy. This means to them, that Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, and Zion is always Zion. In short, literalists believe that Biblical prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal. This belief declares that all of the prophecies in the Bible have a literal fulfilment, so that whenever they are interpreted figuratively, their true meaning is altered. Among certain dispensationalist authors, attempts have been made to define what is meant by a literal hermeneutic.
Charles C. Ryrie gives the following account of the dispensationalist position: ‘"Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. In his exposition of this claim. Normal usage is really the equivalent of a grammatical and historical interpretation of the text. It takes words in their normal, plain or ordinary sense". (Charles C. Ryrie on Dispensationalism)
Paul Lee Tan’s definition of this hermeneutic is similar to Ryrie's: "To 'interpret' means to explain the original sense of a speaker or writer. To interpret 'literally', means to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer according to the normal, customary, and proper usage of words and language. Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usage of its language." (Paul Lee Tan)
Both of these examples maintain that a literal reading of the biblical texts is equivalent to a grammatical-historical reading;, a reading that simply takes the words and language of the text in their ordinary, common, and plain meaning. In fairness to some modern literalists, they do not completely deny the presence of non-literal and figurative language, and some will concede to the possibility of spiritualizing interpretations of historical events. However, literalists maintain that the first rule in reading any Biblical text, is that it must be read in the most literal way possible.
The hyper-literalist claim regarding a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is actually the product of a determination to seperate God’s earthly people (Israel), and God’s spiritual people (the church). If we remove this essentially Judaic preconception (that God has two distinct peoples), there is no need for the denial of what scripture teaches regarding the fulfilment of Old Covenant promises in their New Covenant realities.
Nor is there any longer reason to avoid the clear implications of biblical typology in order to accomodate a literalist system. The The message of the book of Hebrews is a compelling rebuttal of Judaism and any doctrine (or hermeneutic) that endorses it, being a single sustained argument for the finality, richness and completion of Christ's work under the New Covenant. Literalism (esp. dispensationalism) chooses to preserve the old arrangements intact for Israel, in order to re-instate them in a future millennial kingdom. This means reverting to arrangements that have been rendered obsolete and superfluous, despite the fact that their reality has been realised in the provisions of the New Covenant. Christ, the Mediator of this New Covenant, is the fulfilment of all of God's promises to his people. Any reversion to the old system, or its types and ceremonies, is a rejection of the realities of this New Covenant, in preference for the shadows of the Old one.
Literalism, (esp. with regard to futurism/dispensationalism) represents a continued attachment to the shadows and ceremonies of the Old Covenant dispensation, and a failure to properly recognise the finality of the New Covenant. Its literal hermeneutic proves not to be literal according to the proper usage of the term, but rather consists in reading the New Testament 'according to the letter', through the bias of an un-natural insistence upon a separation between Israel and the church.
Anonymous,
Thanks for an excellent and informative comment.
In fairness to some modern literalists, they do not completely deny the presence of non-literal and figurative language, and some will concede to the possibility of spiritualizing interpretations of historical events. However, literalists maintain that the first rule in reading any Biblical text, is that it must be read in the most literal way possible.
I think the problem with this approach is in determining what is the "most literal way possible." Such a determination becomes a subjective call based on the prior commitments or assumptions a person brings to the text. Someone may claim that obviously Jesus didn't mean for us to pluck our eyes out. Another may claim that obviously Jonah was literally inside a fish for three days. How are we to arbitrate such claims? The answer is probably complicated, but I think it ends up requiring a whole bunch of scholarship. We must try our best to understand (and establish in an objective way) how the audience of Jesus would have understood his comment. We must investigate the historical origins of the book of Jonah. We subject these sayings and books to critical examination from various disciplines, historical, literary, etc.
The problem is that these kinds of studies are precisely the kind of examination that many literalists reject outright. This is where I think their position is totally unworkable. They want to be the arbiture of what is literal and what is figurative (as in Todd's first comment) but when someone else comes along and says something is literal or hyperbolic, they call them heretics who don't believe the Bible. That is the rub I referred to in my first comment.
Sorry, above, I meant to type:
Another may claim that obviously Jonah was NOT literally inside a fish for three days.
Jacob.
I can't beleive you married into this family. Your intelligence astounds me. While reading through your blogs, I found myself having to read some sentences over again to fully comprehend their meaning. Here I am with my little blog where I whine and moan about my job and you have these amazing religious and theoligical postings. You better have passed some of this on to my neices and nephews or I will be extremely distraught.
Amilkia,
You are very kind, but I fear your reason for reading it multiple times is my poor writing. At any rate, thanks for dropping by, good to hear from you.
Dear amilkia,
Among us wiser scholars, jacob j's ramblings come across as very juvenile, I assure you.
I have blog now
BHodges...Are you sure they are juvenile or are you not inclined to admit your lack of understanding?
I may not be a scholar, but I do understand passion and passion is an impressive trait among any human being.
Never fear Jacob...
I still am impressed by your intellect
i was joking
Man, my defunct blog for Todd is coming alive. Maybe I'll have to cook up a new post over here.
For those of you who don't know each other, we are all friends :)
I can never take a joke. I never laugh. I never smile. Life is too short to be happy.
I was joking as well..
Good ole' messages don't carry sarcasm very well.
Jacob.
I would appreciate a new post. I've already read all of these..
It's true, I have been a super lazy blogger this year. I haven't hardly posted anything. However, if you are looking for more blogging goodness from Jacob J, I recommend this link where you can find lots of stuff to catch up on from years past.
Post a Comment