Interrogating the Church, 04 – Literalism:

A politician recently declared the Bible to be his worldview on any and every issue. There are a host of problems with that declaration, beginning with the fact that the Bible does not have any one particular “worldview.” The Bible includes various worldview perspectives, but never gathers those together to present any unified whole of thought. It is an anthology. It is a compilation of various kinds of texts from multiple sources spanning centuries from more than one cultural context.

One passage tells us that no one from Moab should ever be included into Israel. Then the book of Ruth denotes her as a Moabite and grandmother of King David. That is a major clash of perspectives. If we look at the first three chapters of Genesis, we find two different accounts of creation. One stresses order from chaos, while the other stresses the creation of humanity as God’s essential purpose. The order of creation differs greatly from one to the other. One has humanity as the last act of creation, while the other splits the creation of humanity between prior to any other life and completed only after all else has been created. Isaiah claims that Yahweh is the only deity there is, while various Psalms place Yahweh at the head of the council of gods, and others passages portray other deities seemingly on the same level as Yahweh, but forbidden to Israelite worship. Those perspectives cannot be reconciled into one worldview, as they present various worldviews.

If we approach the Bible from the catchphrase of it being “literally true,” how do we accommodate differences in accounts that make contrasting truth claims? Jesus refers to this challenge on saying, “You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Ex 21:24),’ but I tell you do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on one cheek, offer them the other, also” (Mt 5:38-39). The original text from Exodus, which was reportedly made by Yahweh, is countermanded by Jesus. Either the original text was an inadequate understanding of Yahweh’s revelation, it did not actually originate with Yahweh, of Jesus is teaching a new ethic on which Yahweh’s position has changed. If we go with the third, then we have trouble with verses that claim that Yahweh does not change (Js. 1:17).

Do we take the Bible literally when it claims there is a firmament in the heavens? That was understood to be a cover above the earth that kept the heavenly oceans from flooding the earth. The windows of heaven were understood as openings from which the clouds were filled up with water. Those terms reflect ancient ways of understanding the structure of the world, just like the pillars holding up the earth above the waters on which it was understood to float. The different layers of heavens (firmaments) were seen as holding oceans of water, and providing a platform for the throne of Yahweh. When Elijah is taken up in a whirlwind, the text intends that he was taken up into the highest of the heavens into Yahweh’s presence. Those would be literal readings and understandings of the texts.

There are, however, other ways to understand the Bible as communicating truth about God. When Nathan confronts David regarding his adulterous behavior with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, Nathan lies to David. He tells him a story that is a complete fabrication with only hints of correlation with what David had done (2 Samuel 12). Nathan talks about a poor man and his beloved lamb, while David’s actions concerned an immigrant and his beautiful wife. While Nathan’s words are not literally true, they clearly communicate truth in a way that David can comprehend the despicable nature of his actions. A blatant lie here communicates truth.

It is not necessary, as some contend, that every word in the Bible be literal truth in order for it to be and appropriately reflect communication from God. Some passages are indeed much richer when we can step back to free them from such constraints of interpretation. In Judges 6, Gideon has an encounter with the prophet mentioned passage. The text, however, uses a progression of phrases indicating how Gideon perceived that encounter. The prophet speaks to the nation. Then it is a Yahweh’s messenger who comes to find and speak to Gideon. Then Yahweh speaks to Gideon. Then once it is a messenger of the gods or of God who speaks with him. Then it is again the messenger of Yahweh. Then the messenger of Yahweh departs and Yahweh speaks to Gideon directly. The terminology here in the Hebrew shows some back and forth in defining who is speaking with Gideon. Contextually, it is “merely” the prophet who has spoken to the nation. At the end, however, Gideon recognizes that what this prophet has said was a communication from Yahweh. After that, Yahweh speaks directly to Gideon is some new form.

It is not four different entities that have come before Gideon and spoken to him, which is what a literal interpretation would have us conclude. It is Yahweh’s prophet through whom Yahweh speaks to Gideon, after which Gideon perceives Yahweh communicating with him without the prophet being necessary.

The Bible never teaches us that the words it contains are the very pronunciations of God that were taken down in dictation. That is how some want to approach the Bible, but that is not what the Scriptures say about themselves, nor how the communities of faith who elevated these texts as more important than others used and thought of them. These are, instead, the narratives passed down within communities of faith that were deemed important enough to preserve and use in their worship of Yahweh. Inspiration is not limited to the writing of these words. It also encompasses whose to whom Yahweh gave revelation, their understanding that this was divine revelation, their passing it on to others who also recognized the revelation these stories or words contained. They in turn passed them on, eventually setting them down in writing that future communities preserved, copied, and passed down to others. Along the way, there was some editing, redaction, and preserving different traditions side by side. The whole was deemed important, of greater importance than any one piece.

This process of canonizing the texts we know as the Bible went through long conversations. Esther almost did not make the cut because it never references Yahweh, nor indeed any other deity. There was conflict over including the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, as well as portions of Daniel. There is some disagreement between the Eastern and Western churches regarding the inclusion of some other Jewish texts, though the West has followed the canon established by Judaism with some adding in those books Jerome named Deuterocanonical (a second class canon). As regards the New Testament, there was much discussion over which texts should be used in worship. Some wanted to exclude James, Revelation, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John. There were questions about some of the letters attributed to Paul, three or which have often been considered written by someone other than Paul. There was another gospel that was considered a possibility and used in some churches and not in others. There was another text, the Didache, which was considered by some important enough to be included. The first list of books that matches the current canon of New Testament books was made in the 300s, simply stating, “these are the books being used in our churches.”

This rich history of how the Biblical canon came to be should call us to reflect on its underlying message. Not all of the texts within the canon seem to reflect the same degree or level of inspiration. That tells me that taking the whole of the Bible as “God’s literal truth” stands on a shaky foundation. It also tells me that while Esther never mentions God, I can still learn something of God and God’s will from that seemingly secular historically-themed text. I also need to respect the Psalms as poetry, while texts like genealogical listings serve a very different role than clarifying much about the character and will of Yahweh. If I try to force Revelation into a literal mind-frame, I end up with a portrait of Jesus that makes absolutely no sense, for how can I describe Jesus’ eyes or tongue when his face is shining as bright as the noonday sun?

We do better taking Paul’s words to Timothy to heart: “Study to show yourself approved.” That means taking time to do a much deeper dive with the Scriptures than attempting to declare them clear at a literal and superficial read. Some things are really clear, but that is because they are repeated over and over in various ways and contexts. Love your neighbor as yourself. In doing this, you fulfill all of God’s commandments.

— ©Copyright 2023, Christopher B. Harbin 

http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

My latest books  can be found here on Amazon