Reading the Bible literally vs. reading metaphorically
Today we finish our Epiphany sermon series that is based on questions that have come from our congregation. Today’s question is
“How do you choose which Bible passages are to be taken literally and which are spiritual?”
So sometimes passages of the Bible are to be read literally. For example, we would say that Jesus was an actual, literal, historical person. … The Prodigal Son from Jesus’ parable was not a literal person. He is a character in a story that Jesus tells, who symbolizes those who turn away from God. These examples are fairly obvious based on genre. But, there are some that aren’t so obvious. This can get to be a pretty complicated topic.
Let’s look at a few more examples.
Our first reading today is from the Song of Songs, which is sometimes called the Song of Solomon. A famous Rabbi, Rabbi Akiva was once questioned by his students who were doubting the Song’s holiness. He gave a surprising response-
Our first reading today is from the Song of Songs, which is sometimes called the Song of Solomon. A famous Rabbi, Rabbi Akiva was once questioned by his students who were doubting the Song’s holiness. He gave a surprising response-
“Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean (i.e. is holy), for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy, and the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5).[1]
The Rabbi’s students were probably questioning the Song’s holiness because it doesn’t mention God, and it can be sexually suggestive in places. Traditionally, children weren’t supposed to read it until they turned 13. So why would the Rabbi think of it so highly?
The presence of the song in the Bible reshapes how it is read. (Brevard Childs has popularized Canonical Criticism in modern academia, if you are interested in this approach). It leans towards an allegorical reading because it is read as a part of the larger story of the Bible. In that larger story we find that, through the prophets, God sometimes speaks of Himself as a groom and the people as His bride. But this is often in a negative light. The people, God’s bride, are cheating on Him. They turn away from their husband to chase after other gods. This is an image that is repeated over and over. For example, we see it in Hosea (ch1-3). We see it is Isaiah (54:5-8), and Jeremiah (2:2-3, 32), and Ezekiel (ch16; 23).
The Song presents the image of passionate love between a man and a woman. We read,
The presence of the song in the Bible reshapes how it is read. (Brevard Childs has popularized Canonical Criticism in modern academia, if you are interested in this approach). It leans towards an allegorical reading because it is read as a part of the larger story of the Bible. In that larger story we find that, through the prophets, God sometimes speaks of Himself as a groom and the people as His bride. But this is often in a negative light. The people, God’s bride, are cheating on Him. They turn away from their husband to chase after other gods. This is an image that is repeated over and over. For example, we see it in Hosea (ch1-3). We see it is Isaiah (54:5-8), and Jeremiah (2:2-3, 32), and Ezekiel (ch16; 23).
The Song presents the image of passionate love between a man and a woman. We read,
“Upon my bed at night/ I sought him whom my soul loves;/ I sought him, but found him not;/ I called him, but he gave no answer. … I will seek him whom my soul loves.’/ I sought him, but found him not./ … I found him whom my soul loves./ I held him, and would not let him go/ until I brought him into my mother’s house,/ and into the chamber of her that conceived me” (3:1, 2b, 4b).
Read in the context of the Bible with all the negative images of an unhealthy marriage between God and Israel, the symbolism of a man and a woman passionately in love is the opposing positive vision. It is God’s desire that his bride would passionately seek Him out, forsaking all others. … Reading the song this way has a long history that includes names like Origen, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Teresa of Avila.
Let's look at another example. Our Psalm for today is Psalm 2. This has been read in reference to the king of Israel, but has also been seen as a reference to the Messiah. Some scholars see Psalm 2 and the book of Revelation as telling the same story. … The king of Israel is seen as a ‘type’ (a kind of consistent symbol) and points to the figure of the Messiah. The title ‘messiah’ means ‘Anointed One’. Kings would receive an anointing with oil to mark them as God’s appointed king. … We read,
Let's look at another example. Our Psalm for today is Psalm 2. This has been read in reference to the king of Israel, but has also been seen as a reference to the Messiah. Some scholars see Psalm 2 and the book of Revelation as telling the same story. … The king of Israel is seen as a ‘type’ (a kind of consistent symbol) and points to the figure of the Messiah. The title ‘messiah’ means ‘Anointed One’. Kings would receive an anointing with oil to mark them as God’s appointed king. … We read,
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed … I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (2:2, 7-8).For Christians, it is easy for us to see Jesus here.
We could also look to other Psalms, like 137, which contains the horrifying lines-
“O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” (137:8-9).
The psalmist is voicing the desire for revenge for what the Babylonians have done to them, such as killing their children. The pastor and author Eugene Peterson says,
“Psalms don’t pray as we should, they pray as we are”.
We should be careful to not see everything in the Bible as prescriptive- we aren’t being directed to go and do this. This is an expression of deep pain and grief on the part of people who experienced unimaginable horror.
Looking at this verse, Origen (185-253AD) says,
Looking at this verse, Origen (185-253AD) says,
“…give up to destruction all their enemies, which are the vices, so that they do not spare even the children, that is, the early beginnings and promptings of evil. … for ‘the little ones’ of Babylon … are those troublesome sinful thoughts that arise in the soul, and one who subdues them by striking , as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of reason and truth, is the person who ‘dashes the little ones against the stones’; and he is therefore truly blessed.”
Ambrose (374-397AD) ads to the image of the rock saying
“…dash all corrupt and filthy thoughts against Christ…”.These are layers of interpretation. We don’t have to pick one over the other. The historical reality is still there are the bottom, but the enemies we face are no longer the Babylonians. As we read in Ephesians 6:12-
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
… The purpose of the Bible is for our spiritual development. That original meaning, that intense expression of grief, is still there. But, overlaying that is another layer of interpretation that has more relevance to us and our spiritual enemies.
Let's look at another example. Paul makes use of allegory as well in our reading from Galatians (4:21-31). The two wives of Abraham are said to be two covenants. He says that Hagar represents the covenant of Mount Sinai and bears children for slavery. Sarah corresponds to the Jerusalem above, to the promise, and bears children for freedom in Christ. Again, this allegorical interpretation doesn’t replace the more historical understanding of the story about Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. It is another layer that lays overtop of the more foundational story.
Let's look at another example. Paul makes use of allegory as well in our reading from Galatians (4:21-31). The two wives of Abraham are said to be two covenants. He says that Hagar represents the covenant of Mount Sinai and bears children for slavery. Sarah corresponds to the Jerusalem above, to the promise, and bears children for freedom in Christ. Again, this allegorical interpretation doesn’t replace the more historical understanding of the story about Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. It is another layer that lays overtop of the more foundational story.
The Church Fathers interpreted the Scriptures using symbols very regularly, and building on this, later medieval interpreters believed there were four types of interpretation, or four layers of meaning.
First, was the literal or historical sense. This was the plain meaning of the story.
Second, was the typological, which often connected the events of the Old Testament to the New Testament using allegory. For example, they sometimes connect the passage through the Red Sea at the Exodus with baptism. Both mark the leaving slavery (Egypt/Sin) to journey towards a Promised Land (Canaan/ The kingdom of God).
Third, is the moral (or tropological) sense where moral direction is gained.
And fourth, is analogical, which point to future events, heaven, hell, and final judgement.
So, to return to our question, we aren’t necessarily having to pick between a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. These layers of meaning coexist. Some layers may be more helpful to us than others in our spiritual development, or in our part of the story of God's people.
So, to return to our question, we aren’t necessarily having to pick between a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. These layers of meaning coexist. Some layers may be more helpful to us than others in our spiritual development, or in our part of the story of God's people.
There are some people that are firmly locked into only the literal sense. Some on the more fundamentalist side of things, who argue for a literal 6 24-hour day creation. And others, who are cynical critical scholars who make fun of the idea of there being talking snakes. Both of them tend to be locked into this one layer of meaning.
It’s also important to say that the way these ancient interpreters came to these symbolic interpretations wasn’t completely random. They had a framework of meaning in their minds. To them this wasn’t something they made up. This was something that was formed in them by God through their spiritual development by being soaked in the worship of the church, through prayer, and through studying the Scriptures. These symbols were discovered, not created. They held the whole Biblical story in their mind at they approached Scripture. They were seeking connections to higher principles.
It’s also important to say that the way these ancient interpreters came to these symbolic interpretations wasn’t completely random. They had a framework of meaning in their minds. To them this wasn’t something they made up. This was something that was formed in them by God through their spiritual development by being soaked in the worship of the church, through prayer, and through studying the Scriptures. These symbols were discovered, not created. They held the whole Biblical story in their mind at they approached Scripture. They were seeking connections to higher principles.
They had some major ‘types’ that were a part of this framework. Adam would point to Christ. Adam also represents all of humanity within himself. In a sense, if Adam dies, all of humanity would die (this is obviously true of Eve as well). Eve would point to the church. The serpent would point to Satan. Mountains were like Sinai, or like suburbs of heaven. The prophets sometimes had visions of a heavenly temple. And that Temple was imaged on earth through Solomon. The Garden of Eden was also thought of as a kind of temple, with Adam as the priest. (The creation story in Genesis 1 is also sometimes thought of as a temple structure.) …
We could use the four senses of Scripture to look at the Transfiguration (from our Matthew reading today).
First, this is an event that Christians generally believe happened as a historical reality. It was a miracle that the disciples experienced. That is the literal or historical sense.
Second, moving to look at this typologically we see Moses and Elijah as representing the Law and the Prophets, and they both approve of Jesus. Jesus isn’t bowing to them, they seem like they they are ministering to him, or serving him. They are on a mountain, which is nearly a heavenly place. Both Moses and Elijah are connected to Mt. Sinai. The clouds point to the manifested glory of God that fills the Temple at the time of Solomon.
Third, the moral sense might direct us to the heavenly voice of the Father speaking to the disciples (who symbolize us) saying,
“This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!”
We are directed to take the words of Jesus seriously. Jesus is not a mere human teacher. To dismiss the words of Jesus, is to dismiss God’s direction.
And fourth, we see in the transfiguration the resurrection of Jesus. We see a revealing of the uncreated light that is often hidden from human sight. We see the glorified heavenly Christ, who we will face as our judge. … If we are bold, perhaps we even see an invitation to our own resurrection and glorification in Christ- our theosis.
There is much more that could be said on this topic, but I think the things that are important to remember is that the Bible is a book used by God for our spiritual development. It is not meant to be a novel, or a newspaper. It is a library that is made up of multiple genres. Much of the Bible can be read very simply. A child can read good portions of the Biblical story and walk away with a sense of the story. But, there are nearly unending depths here as well. The church has been reading the Bible in this way since the beginning. It is a very beautiful way to enter into conversation with God. AMEN
If you are interested in learning more about this way of reading Scripture you could look at "All Thy Lights Combine: Figural Reading in the Anglican Tradition" edited by David Ney (a former priest of this diocese), Ephraim Radner (One of my profs from seminary)- https://www.amazon.ca/All-Thy-Lights-Combine-Tradition/dp/168359553X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3POI23VJUKZF&keywords=all+thy+lights+combine&qid=1676990672&sprefix=all+thy+lights+combin%2Caps%2C217&sr=8-1
There is much more that could be said on this topic, but I think the things that are important to remember is that the Bible is a book used by God for our spiritual development. It is not meant to be a novel, or a newspaper. It is a library that is made up of multiple genres. Much of the Bible can be read very simply. A child can read good portions of the Biblical story and walk away with a sense of the story. But, there are nearly unending depths here as well. The church has been reading the Bible in this way since the beginning. It is a very beautiful way to enter into conversation with God. AMEN
[1]
Francis Landy. Paradoxes of
Comments
Post a Comment