Understanding the Bible as Literature

Some of my friends will be “offended” at what I am about to say. What I mean is they won’t like it; they will disagree vehemently. I know this because I expressed the thought one Sunday morning, and a dear friend misunderstood, and our relationship was never the same. If you are willing, please read to the end before you form an opinion.

I finished reading the book of Jonah this morning, and I was reminded by a commentary I had open that some people think the book is an extended metaphor or perhaps a parable. I asked myself what difference it would make if the events recorded in the book were fictional. I wondered if that would have any effect on the truth of the message. I think not, but I know the arguments against that opinion.

The most serious argument against the events in the book of Jonah being fictional is that is diminishes the truth of all Scripture. Those who hold this opinion usually also express the idea that the Bible must be taken “literally” in every instance. I say we cannot take the Bible literally in every instance. This is the point at which my friend lost his cool. The problem is with the definition of “literally.” My friend thought I was challenging the truth of Scripture. I am not.

A dictionary definition of literal follows: “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.” This explains why we cannot take the Bible literally all the time. Scripture is full of metaphor, allegory, parable, symbolism, imagery and apocalyptic literature. So, for example, if we take Isaiah 11:1 literally, the then-coming Messiah would be a vegetable of some kind: “a shoot… from the stump of Jesse.” That implies Jesse was a tree or something too.

We understand that Isaiah was employing a metaphor to teach that the Messiah would be born in the line of Jesse, hence a descendant of David which was necessary to fulfill many promises God made to David in particular and Israel in general. The same is true of Scriptures that speak of God’s judgment shaking mountains or an enemy’s advance being like locust or rivers of water flowing from a believer’s belly. We do not take these passages literally, but we do not doubt the truth they teach using metaphor or symbolism.

A second good reason some people think we must believe Jonah’s circumstances represent physical reality (they really happened) is that the New Testament, Jesus particularly, uses the lesson of Jonah. It is held that if Jesus referenced Jonah, then the story must be true, historical fact. This sounds convincing at first, but it is not logical. Jesus told numerous parables that teach truth but do not find their truthfulness in the fact that they actually happened. I doubt there was a Samaritan man who helped a poor traveler who had been robbed and beaten. I doubt there was an actual person who sold everything he had to buy a field in which he had discovered treasure. And so on; you get the point.

Regarding Jesus’ use of Jonah, it is not necessary for the events to have occurred for the meaning to be true. Consider this: when we say someone has the strength of Hercules or Superman, it does not require that our listeners believe Hercules or Superman actually exist. We understand the reference to unnatural strength to be the point. Angelo Siciliano changed his name to Charles Atlas because Atlas is a mythical figure who had the strength and fortitude to hold the entire world on his shoulders. I don’t think Angelo believed Atlas ever existed. That doesn’t take away from the reference.

So it is with Jonah: Jesus could refer to a parable from the Old Testament with just as much effect as if it were an historical event. The meat is in the reference, not the referent. I know I am on shaky ground here; some would say a slippery slope. I am not suggesting that there is no historical basis for anything in the Old Testament (or the New, for that matter). I am simply saying that whether Jonah was really swallowed by a huge fish or not, Jesus point about “the sign of Jonah” being parallel to His three days in the tomb still rings true.

In other words, I believe the Bible is all truly the Word of God. I believe everything in it was put there by the supernatural methods God chose to make His revelation. Sometimes God orchestrated human events so that, as Paul says, they could be an example for us to learn from. Sometimes God used symbolism, imagery, metaphor and any other literary device He chose to make His point. The literal parts and the not-literal parts are equally God’s Word.

The key to proper interpretation of Scripture vis a vis this literal conundrum is to recognize that the Bible is made up of many genres of literature. Each genre or type of literature must be read according to the logical rules of interpretation. When Jesus used hyperbole, we don’t take it literally; we are not supposed to poke out our eyes if they lead us to sin. When Jesus recommended believers take up a sword to advance the kingdom, He was not advocating jihad.

A slavish, literal interpretation of all Scripture leads to gross misinterpretation. At one point in church history, people were put to death because they suggested the earth revolved around the sun. The church leaders thought this contradicted the clear teaching of the Bible that the sun rose and set (revolved) around the earth. Again, the Bible frequently uses the idea of the earth having “foundations” because the cosmology of the day pictured the earth as a table with legs or foundations.

The inspired Word of God uses the understanding of the original readers to make its point. The Old Testament, particularly the wisdom literature and the prophets, is full of metaphor, imagery and symbolism. The original readers were accustomed to literature that was not meant literally. While it is true that some people in church history have taught that the entire Bible is allegorical, their overreach should not cause us to swing the pendulum too far the other way and assume the Bible is all to be taken literally.

It should go without saying that the Holy Spirit is the final arbiter to determine how a passage of Scripture is to be interpreted. I suspect that He, after all, is the agent through whom the words were originally inspired and written. This fact, however, does not absolve us of the need to use our God-given faculties of reason and logic to reach an understanding of the meaning of Scripture. To paraphrase a popular aphorism, read Scripture like it all depends on the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning, and think like it all depends on you to figure it out. That should give the necessary balance to reading the Bible as literature.

Later posts: Take the Bible Literally; Taking the Bible Literally Part 2