Taking the Bible Literally Part 3

 I know I am beating a potentially dead horse, but the subject is so critical to proper understanding of the Scriptures, that I am hitting it again. Many serious, blood-bought, born again, students of the Bible say we must interpret the Word literally. I said it before (see Related Posts), and I will say it again: you cannot always take the individual words in the Bible in a literal sense. The genre, context and plain logic often dictate otherwise. Keep in mind that to say “not literal” does not mean “not true.”

For example, I once heard a preacher say, “All means all, and that’s all all means.” I came across an “all” in my reading this morning that clearly does not mean all in the literal sense. Mark 1:5 says, “And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” First, it is highly unlikely that every single person living in Judea and Jerusalem found their way to the Jordan where John was preaching. Second, it is even more unlikely that they were all repenting and being baptized. We know for a fact that John saw through the motives of some of them and called them the offspring of vipers.

So, in that instance for sure, “all” does not mean all. Another example of a phrase not meant to be taken literally occurs when Jesus shows up in Capernaum and Mark records, “And the whole city had gathered at the door.” One source estimates the population of the city in the time of Jesus was 1,000 people, so it is unlikely that a crowd of that size could be “at the door.” Even if we imagine all 1,000 people, “the whole city,” came to see Jesus, they would probably fit in the general neighborhood, but not “at the door.” Not literally.

Some of my readers are bound to be asking at this point why I belabor this subject. Here is why: throughout the centuries, people have taken a literal interpretation of Scripture to deplorable lengths. During the dark years of the Inquisition, the church persecuted cosmologists who believed the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around as the Bible literally says. It is estimated that between 3,000 - 5,000 people were martyred during the three-century reign of the Inquisition. Many of the heresies they were charged with stemmed from a disagreement over Bible interpretation.

The Crusades are another example of misguided zeal drawn from a mistaken literal interpretation. The desire to free the “Holy Land” from the Muslim conquerors was based on the belief that Jerusalem was still uniquely important to God. During the Old Testament dispensation, Jerusalem was special to God; it was His dwelling place on earth. That distinction ended when the Messiah died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn. Removing the curtain from God’s holy place symbolized the movement of God from one temple of stone to many hearts of flesh. Soon after, Herod’s temple and the entire city of Jerusalem were destroyed in an act of judgment by God which the prophets had foretold for centuries.

The Bible clearly states that believers are citizens of a New Jerusalem, a heavenly city that supersedes the earthly city. (Hebrews 12:22; Galatians 4:26) Ever since the initiation of the church, the earthly Jerusalem has lost its “holy” status. Admittedly, it has great historical significance, and people may feel especially close to God traveling through the land where most Bible history took place. But ever since God passed judgment on faithless Israel in 70 A.D., Jerusalem became a city like any other populated by saints and sinners.

The Zionist sentiment that fueled the Crusades lives even in our century. It percolated to the surface of Christian thinking in the nineteenth century. Many Christians in that time believed it was important to find a homeland for the Jews who had been dispersed throughout the world. Zionism, the longing to see physical Israel restored, is still preached by some devotees. John Hagee, for example, would have us believe that support for the nation of Israel is one of the church’s most pressing tasks today. He makes the common mistake of appropriating to the church the promises of literal, physical blessings made to Abraham and his descendants.

The New Testament defense for Zionism is largely based on a disputed passage in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Near the close of his impassioned plea for the salvation of his people, the Jews, he makes the statement, “All Israel will be saved.” Zionists believe Paul meant physical, ethnic Israel. To make that case, they must disregard Paul’s extended argument throughout his letters that God’s people are the people of faith, not the descendants of Abraham. As he told the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek [in Christ].” Ethnic Jews must come to God today the same way everyone else does: through faith in Jesus the Messiah.

It is ironic that Christian Zionists who twist their theology like a pretzel to justify building a new temple in Jerusalem overlook some very clear literal statements that quash their entire argument. Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple. Matthew says that Jesus told his listeners that their generation would not die before the end He predicted came to pass. In the book of Revelation, Jesus told John that when He came in judgment on Jerusalem, those who pierced Him would see Him coming. His coming, according to Jesus Himself was near. The future things John was to write were, “About to [ready to] take place.” The message of Revelation is about the judgment of Jerusalem – physical, literal Jerusalem. God had been warning them about it for hundreds of years.

If we take all those passages literally, there is little support for the expectation of a new temple being built in Jerusalem at the end of the age. If we understand Paul to say that the true Israel is the church, his claim that “all Israel will be saved” makes perfect sense. All those who trust in the Israel of God (Jesus the Messiah) will be saved. Take the Bible literally where it makes sense to do so and embrace the symbolism God intended where that is His clear intent. Genre, context, and plain logic are the guides to proper biblical interpretation. To do otherwise always leads to error.

Related Posts: Take the Bible Literally?; Taking the Bible Literally Part 2;  Understanding the Bible as Literature;