I keep hoping people will stop using the word “literal” to describe the Bible — as in: “take the Bible literally” “literal interpretation of the Bible” and so forth. It’s never going to happen, but I keep hoping.

The reason I keep hoping for this is the fact that the term is over-used, wrongly used, and abused. What does it mean to take the Bible “literally“? What does the word “literal” mean in this context? It seems to be used rather loosely. I understand it to be the opposite of words like “symbolic” “figurative,” or “allegorical.” To take a thing literally is to take it at face value. It’s not that difficult a concept. Yet, the way the word is used would make you think otherwise.

Again, what does the word “literal” mean? It is the opposite of words like “symbolic” “figurative,” or “allegorical.” To take a thing literally is to take it at face value. As N. T. Wright says: “the “literal” sense actually means “the sense of the letter”; and if the “letter” — the actual words used by the original authors or editors — is metaphorical, so be it.” This is the sense in which the word “literal” has been used in the history of Biblical interpretation.

Historically, Christians have discerned other levels of meaning in the Bible. Origen is the Church Father most often associated with the allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Beyond the literal meaning, he sought to find a symbolic and spiritual meaning to the text. Every text, he argued, had a deeper level of meaning, as well as its literal and historical meaning. For the life of faith, this deeper, spiritual meaning was especially significant. The apostle Paul utilizes allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament in Galatans 4:21-31 — so, this is not without precedent. As long as allegorical interpretation is controlled by a good grasp of the fundamental teaching of the Christian faith (what early Christians called “The Analogy of Faith”), it shouldn’t be a problem. Or, is it?

The concern that arises here is that allegorical interpretation can — and often does — get very fanciful. Some commentators have gone overboard. How do we know that the allegorical interpretation one person discerns in Scripture has any weight or relevance to anyone else. There don’t seem to be enough controls on the meanings that might arise.

It seems to me that all of our advances in understanding the Scriptures since the time of Origen have been the result of the rejection of this allegorical method. Particularly in Protestantism, it has been argued that the important level of meaning in the scriptures is the literal and historical level of meaning. This is seen in Martin Luther’s doctrine of the clarity of scripture. Luther argued against the idea of various levels of meaning. He said, instead, that the meaning of a scripture text is its plain sense, when interpreted according to sound principles. In a similar way, John Wesley frequently spoke of the “plain sense” of scripture. I think these are reactions against the fanciful interpretations that arose in the Church prior to their times. So, this was: lets get back to the literal (not allegorical) meaning of Scripture.

However, it is precisely this insistence on literal and historical understanding that led to the historical-critical approach to the Bible. Wolfhart Pannenburg states this rather well in one of his early essays:

“For what is today called historical-critical exegesis is, according to its goal, simply the endeavor to understand the biblical writings — the intention and content of their statements — out of themselves. The doctrine of the clarity of scripture necessarily led to the demand that each theological statement should be based on the historical-critical exposition of scripture.” — Basic Questions in Theology (Volume 1).

Historical-critical study has led to questioning whether Scripture is a “literal” history. But, this is healthy questioning. It is still the result of the attempt to understand the Scriptures for what they actually are — in their form and content.

If a person takes a TV “docudrama” as actual history is one being literal or just confused? If a person takes stories which have been repeated and recorded as the basis for faith and life-values to be only pious fabrications — is one being openly critical or dangerously biased?

The Bible should be taken seriously, and respected for what it is. But, the Bible should not be taken for something it is not. The scriptures ought to be interpreted according to their original intent and their actual form. To understand them otherwise is to proceed from mistaken assumptions. Should such an approach be dignified with the word “literal”?

This why I spent some time looking closely at the claims and testimony of the New Testament writers who talk about inspiration and their writing: 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Luke 1:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-4, and Revelation 1:1-4.

Literal meaning should not be seen as something other than the actual historical meaning. It is the person who understands the Bible historically who is taking it literally. Someone who takes a symbolic passage of the Bible as a concrete description is simply confused.

It is precisely the critical scholar who takes the Bible literally. Rather than seeking to make everything in the Bible conform to some preconceived idea of its nature and inspiration, the critical method seeks to understand. At best, the critical approach is an attempt to inductively discover the nature and meaning of the scriptures from themselves and their own history; rather than imposing on the scriptures an a priori theology.

It seems odd to me that anyone would think that the literal meaning of the scriptures is something other than its historical-critical meaning. The alternatives have been misconstrued. Simply stated:

• to take the Bible literally should mean to take it at face value;
• to take the Bible literally should mean to take it figuratively and symbolically when it seeks to communicate in that way;
• to take the Bible literally means to take it for what it claims to be (and no more than that!);
• to take the Bible literally should mean to take an historical and critical approach to the task of interpretation.

If this is what we mean by taking the Bible “literally” then I’m glad to say I do.

I think this is also what John Wesley meant by “literal.”

“But it is a stated rule in interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, literal sense, unless it implies an absurdity.” — Sermon 74. “Of the Church”.

If “literal” means taking the Bible as dictated by God then I certainly do not take it that way. The Bible doesn’t make this claim for itself anyway. Human beings wrote under the inspiration of God.

It is time for the theological disciplines of the scholars to be related to the vital tasks of the proclamation, defense and explanation of the Christian faith. It is time for words like “faithful,” “orthodox,” and “evangelical” to take their places beside words like “critical,” “modern,” and “liberal.” Personally, I am sick and tired of labels and generalizations. While these are doing a great job of splitting us apart — they are doing nothing to bring us together,.

The false dilemmas of the past leave us still paralyzed in the face of a world that needs to hear anew the claims of Jesus Christ.