Do you take the Bible literally? Or, to rephrase the question, do you believe that God actually
means what he says in his word? It is amazing to me how many people really do not believe the
Bible. They say things like, “You can’t take the Bible literally.” Or, “Well, that’s just your
interpretation of the Bible.” When you stop and think about it, these statements betray a serious
misunderstanding about the nature of the Bible. They suggest that God is incapable of making
himself clearly understood, or that he has spoken in such highly poetic, figurative or mysterious
language that we really cannot comprehend its meaning. But does this thinking hold up under
scrutiny? Consider a few points if you would:
When other people speak to us, we generally take them literally. If my wife should say to
me, “Please call me before you leave the office today,” do you suppose she would be in a good
humor if I showed up without calling and said, “Well, I didn’t know you meant that literally.” Or
maybe I could defend myself from her exasperated greeting by saying, “I thought you were
speaking metaphorically, or maybe mystically. After all, we can’t all understand such statements
alike.” How far do you think such protests would get me?
While functioning in an organized society, we generally take statements literally. For
example, if I am driving on the highway with a posted speed limit of 65 mph, and am stopped by
a police officer for exceeding the speed limit, do you think I should escape by claiming that the
speed limit signs should not be taken literally? If I should bring the matter to court, would the
judge be persuaded by my argument that traffic laws are “poetic” in nature, and are subject to
various interpretations?
Why is it that only when we come to the Bible do we hear people saying that it cannot be
taken literally? Or that it is subject to each person’s own interpretation? Could it be that this has
become a convenient way for people to disregard or disobey it?
We recognize that certain portions of the Bible are indeed written in figurative or poetic
language. The book of Revelation, for example, is highly figurative. In fact, it identifies itself as a
dream, and is composed of apocalyptic literature. It is filled with symbols and figures. But then,
this is obvious from the context. Anyone reading the book of Revelation can know that it is
figurative in nature, because it identifies itself as such.
But the vast majority of the Bible is written in very straightforward, literal terminology. It
contains direct statements, commandments to be obeyed, promises to be kept, exhortations and
admonitions to be observed, and warnings to be heeded. These should not be dismissed on the
basis that they are “merely figurative” or unintelligible.
The book of Acts, for example, contains a precisely-detailed narrative of the early days of
the church. It is written in literal language, including considerable chronological and geographical
detail. It is difficult to imagine how any portion of it could be discarded on the basis that it should
not be “taken literally.” That would be like listening to a brilliant history lesson on the beginning
of America, then picking and choosing certain parts to reject because I choose not to “take them
literally.” The gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are likewise presented in a very
straightforward, factual narrative fashion. How could a person pick and choose from them the parts
they wish to accept, without doing violence to the whole? Similarly, when we read the epistles to
the various individuals and churches of the first century, it is obvious that we are reading
conversational letters, not fanciful stories or figurative tales. There is no basis on which these can
be discarded as unintelligible. They obviously mean what they say.
—continued next week
