In my previous post I argued that it's almost unimaginable to be a follower of Christ and ot believe the Bible. I can picture a scenario where a tribe hears the good news from a missionary and believes but doesn't have the physical Bible on hand. But that is a very different scenario from a person having the Bible available and choosing to disbelieve for various reasons, and still claiming to believe in Christ, and follow His teachings. In other words, if you claim that the primary documents that tell us who Jesus is and the things He did and taught are not fundamentally true, on what basis do you believe in Jesus? And in what Jesus are you believing?
But if it is true that one cannot truly follow Christ apart from accepting that the record of His life and ministry is true - in other words, believing the Bible - the next question is this: what does it mean to believe the Bible? Most people I know bristle at what I am about to say, but I think one needs to believe the Bible literally if he is going to believe it at all.
The biggest objection people have to understanding the scriptures is the notion of taking the Bible literally. What they generally mean is that there are stories that seem far-fetched and to believe the Bible literally is to believe that such far-fetched (yea, "impossible") stories are true. Since they don't want to feel dumb for believing in the unbelievable, they simply choose to disbelieve. Which, of course, makes a certain degree of sense. It should be noted, though, that scientists present us with all kinds of claims that seem to be "unbelievable" (or at least, incredibly hard to believe). For example, we are told that light is both a wave and a particle; we are told that the universe simply popped into being from nothing on its own; we are told that something can exist in an infinite number of quantum states but it is only the observation of the thing that determines its actual state; we are now being told that there very well may be multiple (in fact, an infinite number of) universes that make up a "multiverse". Some of the smartest people on earth believe in these things - and I'm not even saying that they're wrong - but the point is that they are all extremely hard to believe, and yet we are told by the experts that they are true. So it is very much within us believe things that seem far-fetched.
But what I really want to explore is the idea of taking the Bible literally. I've mentioned what people think it means, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, I do not think it means what they think it means. To take the Bible literally means to take it as the literature dictates. Let me explain.
The Bible is made up of 66 individual books. Now, some of them are actually two parts of the same work (like 1 and 2 Kings). Each book intends to communicate specific things in a particular way. There are, in other words, different genres of literature. Here are some of the genres and a book that represents that genre:
Poetry - Psalms
History - 1,2 Chronicles
Gospel - Luke (a kind of biography/history/gospel message)
Epistle - Romans
Prophecy - Jeremiah
Each of these genres approaches its reader in a specific way, and should be read as such. Suppose I am reading Acts 16:1-3. It says, "16 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."
When I read this I need to realize that Acts is a book of history, and thus when I believe the Bible literally, I believe that Paul actually visited Derbe and Lystra and actually met a man named Timothy who was of mixed parentage and who had a good reputation in the area.
But suppose I read Isaiah 55:12, which says, "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands." What am I to make of that? If I take the Bible literally am I supposed to believe that trees have hands and that mountains and hills sing? No, that would actually do the text a grave injustice, because it is not claiming any such thing. As one commentator noted, "These are highly poetic images to express a happy state attended with joy and exultation." The point of the passage is that God is calling people to Himself, and He is the giver and sustainer of life, and He promises good to those who love Him. It is written in poetic form and thus uses metaphor, imagery, and other creative measures to communicate truth. It is not meant to be read like a history or science text.
One more: suppose I read John 20:24--29 - the story of "doubting" Thomas. Jesus has died and the disciples are claiming that He has risen. Thomas is, shall we say, highly skeptical. He said, "Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe." And then, eight days later, Jesus appeared to Thomas. If I read that story, that is not poetic literature. It is meant to convey fact. Jesus actually did appear to Thomas, and Thomas actually believed in the physical, literal resurrection of Jesus. To turn this episode into some sort of "spiritualized" event (i.e., it didn't really happen; it's just something for us to feel good spiritually...whatever that means) is also to do a grave injustice to the text.
So to take the Bible literally is to take it as it was meant to be taken. Nothing more, nothing less.
So yes, a Bible-believing Christian (again, is there any other kind, really?) should take the Bible literally, but that means recognizing when it is speaking historical fact, offering words of encouragement, using figures of speech, etc. It's all part of the incredibly dynamic Word of God, as He communicates truth to us in a variety of ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment