As I noted in a previous post, Biblical literalists is a common label thrown at Bible-believing Christians implying that they interpret every part of the Bible in a completely literal, rigid fashion.
The charge often comes from theologically liberal Christians as a handy way to dismiss the arguments of those who take the Bible seriously. I suppose it is easier than working through the passages in question, but ultimately it is rather unproductive.
I think the more accurate term for most of us would be contextualists – in that we read Bible verses in context – not just in the context of the surrounding passages but in the context of surrounding passages and the whole Bible.
I like what Greg Koukl had to say about reading the Bible: “I try to take it with the precision the writer intended.”
A few things I don’t take literally:
- Jesus doesn’t want us to dismember ourselves, He wants us to understand the seriousness of sin: Matthew 5:27-30 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
- Jesus it not really a plant: John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
- I’m not really supposed to hate my family: Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.
- The Bible is not a science textbook: When the Bible mentions a sunrise or sunset I don’t take that as a scientific claim that the sun really rises and sets. I realize that people used figures of speech 3,000 years ago just like we do today. I also don’t call the Weather Channel to tell them what unscientific idiots they are for referring to sunrises and sunsets.
Any additions to the list?
I like your term of contextualists. I would consider myself one of these I think. You can tell me if I am or not. I do not believe that the end times will have the signs exactly like the Book of Revelation have them written. I believe Job “may” have been a parable (not 100 percent sure). I believe that the story Jesus teaches about the rich man and Lazarus is not a description of Hell.
On the other hand, I believe that there are certain truths that can be learned from each. Job teaches us patience and character and reliance on God and who’s truly important…whether the story is historical or not. We are to be ready for the end of times just as Jesus warned us about in his parables whether or not beasts devour and locusts swarm or not. Hell is a terrible place that none of us would want to be, even if it’s not like the description in the parable.
So how about it? Am I a contextualist? Or do I get booted off the island for being too liberally interpretive?
On a tangent…
I love Jesus’ message on amputation. And I think the passage shows that we may need to amputate something. If you have problems looking at women, cut off the things most dear to you if necessary, i.e. TV shows, unfiltered internet access. Have problems with substance abuse, cut off certain relationships, habits, etc…
And speaking of context, I think it is interesting that in the same passage Jesus talks about lust and our eyes, he just happens to mention our right hand… Someone pointed that out to me, and something I missed in the past… Jesus is no dummy, he knew exactly what he was saying and he was no stranger to context.
It would be so much easier for us to go along with the liberal theologians except that this is not how truth works. Truth is true whether we like it or not.
It all boils down to the personal relationship one has with Jesus. He convicts you and changes what you do, why you do it, and how you do it.
Good points. I like the contextualist label.
I, however, believe that God created the world in six literal, 24-hour days out of nothing. Yep. I’m kinda funny that way. I believe that account is an actual account recorded for us by inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I believe that God can create something out of nothing in whatever way He chooses. And in context, such a creation account is in perfect harmony with the rest of God’s Word and our purpose for life.
I had a Bible teacher who said “if the plain sense makes sense, make no other sense, lest you come up with nonsense”…or something to that effect. If the Bible says something happened, I believe it did. If Jesus was speaking in parables, He told us. The Bible frequently explains previous passages by telling us the meaning of certain phrases or visual examples (i.e.: the dry bones of Ezekiel chpt 37). I too believe in the literal 6 day creation, because that’s the way it is presented. I do not, however, believe that God has wings (Psalm 17) because it’s pretty obvious when the Bible is speaking metaphorically. And although much of the book of Revelation is metaphorical, I believe it is speaking of a literal end of time, complete with an antichrist, a one-world religion and government, a seven-year tribulation, the rapture, the two witnesses, and the curses that will be brought down upon mankind etc. Hundreds of Biblical prophecies have been fullfilled through the years, and that gives the evidence to me of a divine author.
When one starts picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe, it says one does not believe in the authority of or the innerrancy of the Bible. If you can’t trust what the Bible says, why bother being a Christian?
Neil,
In regards to the hating-the-family verse, I remember hearing at some point that the word used by Jesus translated to mean not actively hating, but loving less. In other words, supposedly Jesus was telling us that we must love Him over all people. I’m not sure if it’s true or not—have you heard that too?
Well, the context I use is this: The Bible, colloquially called “the Word of God,” bears witness to our faith and its early connections to Judaism, with writings by men inspired by God, and enlivened by their encounters with the Divine, who attempt to tell the truth and reality of their experiences. As such, it is sacred because of its place in our faith history, and is the main guide, but not the only guide, for how to live as a Christian.
Hi L&L – I’d have to look at the original Greek. Either way, I think your conclusion about loving Him over all others is accurate.
Excellent post and definately food for thought.
I like your idea of contextualists.
It makes sense too.
I do believe however, in a literal 6 days creation, and such things that often get changed.
Hey, Neil, you ignorin’ me in the name of peace, or have I moderated my heresy enough to make it palatable? Hee hee.
Neil this has been a bandwagon I’ve been on for along time. Thanks for tackling this topic.
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said with disdain, “Do you take the Bible LITerally?”
I usually ask, “Should I take your question LITerally?”
No one defends the position of ‘trees clapping hands’ and other ridiculous things liberals like to use in this attack. We take the literature as the type of literature it is, in context, and seek to arrive at the original author’s meaning.
If that is what is meant by taking it “LITerally,” then a hearty “YES!” If it is the distorted straw-man that people like to build, then, no, we don’t believe Jesus is a loaf of bread.
Are we really having to have this conversation? Oh yeah, we are.
tr
ER – Ha! Hey, you said that that the Bible had “writings by men inspired by God,” so you were close enough for me
.
It leaves me puzzled how a person living in the 21st century can still believe in the 6-day-creation myth.
Those people have neither carefully read and understood Genesis 1 and 2, and on top of that are completely ignorant of the world about them.
I take it that they also believe in the flood story. That is even harder to swallow. Just take a look at the wildlife forms that you find on isolated islands and then try to explain, how the plants and other creatures have made their way there over the last 4200 years. Why are there so many species that are endemic (i. e., they exist only there and nowhere else) to certain islands? Why are a lot of species similar but not identical to their relatives on the nearest mainland?
There are thousands of questions that can be explained by evolution, but the only “explanation” that literalists can give is “God did it”.
There are tens of thousands of honest scientists who explore the history of life on Earth and have come up with the answer that it can only have evolved. On the other side there are a few dozen people who claim that evolution is a lie and creation is the correct answer.
If you take an unbiased look at the facts you know who is right, and it is not the creationists.
Neil said: Hi Wolf – you are welcome to read and comment here, but I prefer that people stay on track and not just post negative assertions willy-nilly.
For example, I realize that many atheists have a blind faith in the universe coming from nothing and life coming from non-life, and that they have no viable explanation for the laws of logic and morality, among other things. But I don’t go to atheist sites and comment on that regardless of what the theme of the thread is.
Your made up figures about how many are on each side wouldn’t prove anything even if they were accurate. The truth is the truth no matter how few people believe it, and a lie is a lie no matter how many believe it.
And fyi, not all Christians believe in a literal 6 day / “young earth” creation view (I’m not taking sides, just stating a fact).
P.S. Your wildlife example was rather ironic considering that a creating God is a far better explanation than evolution. Your view would not only involve life coming from non-life and evolving to the unbelievable complexity we see today, but doing so multiple times in multiple places.
Back on track now, please!
how does a contextualist view the story of creation
i’m doing an essay and i am stuck on this very topic
Ben, please provide a little more context. What class is the essay for, what do you specifically want to know, what verses are you thinking of, etc.
Pingback: Another fan! « Eternity Matters