The Weekly Southern Blog

When is the Bible not literal?

11/30/2011

1 Comment

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

1 Comment

Tom

11/29/2011 11:35:15 pm

Hmmm. As I walk around with that 200 lb. cross on my back everyday (take up your cross and follow me, said Jesus), inadvertently knocking over displays when shopping, strapping it to the roof of my Mini Cooper when driving, and tripping over it in the night, I sometimes wonder if I've missed something in my study of the Bible. That said, I believe the debate over what should be taken literally and what should be taken metaphorically in the Bible will always be a cause of concern between well meaning people.

In Exodus, we are told that the Children of Israel's shoes didn't wear out for 40 years. This seems impossible and might easily be written off as a mere symbol of God's provision. On the other hand, I knew of a poor widow who had an 18-year-old car on which she had never changed the tires. Her confidence was in this fact, if God could provide shoes that never wore out for His people, He could provide tires that never wore out for her! It would be easy to dismiss this woman's literal understanding of the word as foolishness. On the other hand, her tires looked new after 18 years of use!

Ephesians 3:20 makes the case that "...He is able to do exceedingly beyond all that we think to ask." This widow had the temerity (and faith) to simply believe for something that, to the great minds of this world, is foolishness. Yet, God met her faith with action. I find it hard to fault her reasoning, even though I would agree that shoes never wearing out is a metaphor for God's provision and His authority over physical reality.

I believe the best we can do is try to study the Bible in its totality (a daunting task), making sure to keep any one verse in context with the rest of the text, and ask God's Holy Spirit to teach us so that we might understand both God and His intentions for us.

I realize that this is an unsatisfactory answer for those who demand certainty, and purity, in all rational pursuits (as if any of us were actually capable of achieving it). However, we are but frail creatures, limited in our understanding in the best of times, and I can find no better answer to this conundrum.

As to the setup in the cartoon to which I'm responding, it, too, takes the word out of context to make its argument. If we read what Jesus had to say throughout His ministry on Earth, we find that He didn't require everyone to sell all that they had and give to the poor. No, He said that to the rich young ruler whose confidence was in his wealth. Jesus did, however, say to give all of ourselves in the pursuit of the Kingdom of God, which may, or may not, include selling all that we have and giving to the poor.

In such a view, everything is available for God's use at any time so enjoy what you have when you have it, but be prepared to give freely into His kingdom as His Spirit leads. At least, that's the "literal" understanding I've come to!

Regarding the "Rapture" video, I don't think I really understand the case being made. Personally, I've always believed the rapture to be a Christian fantasy born out of a desire to avoid difficulty. As far as I can see, God is not shy about letting His own go through torment and, I believe, we can expect nothing but hatred from the world. Jesus said as much to His disciples and all of them suffered in this life for the sake of the Gospel. How is it that any of us would expect less?

Finally, the bumper sticker is a bumper sticker. Compelling, but incomplete. Rather than go on at length about it, let me just say that the world presents difficult choices to all of us as a consequence of sin. We are often put in the unappetizing position of having to choose sides between two competing forces and must choose the lesser of two evils (think Presidential elections!). If we see a woman being attacked and, to save her, kill her attacker, do we do good or bad? After all, if we don't act, the woman may suffer and die. However, if we attack, her assailant is dead. These are the difficulties of living a moral life in an amoral world. When literally presented with these stark choices, I have chosen to interfere on the woman's behalf. Thankfully, I was able to disarm and subdue the assailant without killing him!

When is the Bible not literal?

Leave a Reply.

Archives