The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

IS THE BIBLE TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY?
(Or Common Sense Hermeneutics)

    It is an odd question, come to think about it. I am not sure that such a question is asked about any other book. Whether it be a novel, a work of history, a biography, or a typical textbook, no one ever asks if it is to be taken literally. You would think it strange if someone asked you as you opened a letter from a friend, Will you take it literally?

    A suitable answer would seem to be, regardless of the nature of the book or document, I will take it for what it says. It may not always be easy to determine what is meant by what is said, but that remains the intent of the reader, to ascertain the meaning. To speak of taking a document literally may even evoke suspicion. It could lead one to respond with something like, "Oh, you think my friend may be on some poetic binge and has sprinkled her letter with symbols." If there is any likelihood of that one might add, "If so, I'll probably be able to figure out what she's getting at." If she should say in her letter, "That old fox of a professor that I told you about is still on my back," he would know what she meant. He certainly would not conclude that her professor had four legs and a furry tail and now and again rode astride her as she made her way across the campus. He would give no thought to whether he was interpreting literally or figuratively, unless someone raised the question. He would simply be interpreting, period.

    This is to say when we read anything we read it like we read anything else, allowing of course for such differences as prose and poetry, and if we gave our method a name we might call it common sense. Whatever I read I read it with common sense sounds like a rule that would bear us through all our literary pursuits. Except the Bible. When it comes to the Bible we treat it as a book apart, as if it is to be interpreted differently from other books. To be sure, we have a different attitude toward the Bible, for we believe it is the only book that is holy Scripture, but a different attitude does not call for a different way of interpreting.

    One basic rule of hermeneutics that Alexander Campbell gave to the church on the American frontier was within this context: the same laws of interpretation which are applied to the language of other books are to be applied to the language of the Bible. (Christian System, p. 4) Campbell believed that this one rule would liberate the Bible from the hands of the clergy, who presumed themselves to be the only true interpreters, and once again place it in the hands of the people. Along with hermeneutical principles Campbell presented to the public a fresh translation of the New Testament called The Living Oracles.

    An amusing anecdote reveals how Campbell considered this. Noting a theologian's use of Jn. 11:28 where Martha calls to her sister and says, "The Teacher has come and is calling for you," in which he found such weighty Calvinistic notions as the incarnation and the effectual call. Campbell called to him a child playing outside his study door and read the passage to her in context, asking her what it said. The child replied that it is saying that one sister (Martha) is telling the other sister (Mary) that Jesus had arrived and wanted to see her, simply that.

    Campbell saw the theologian as muddying the water with "mystical" interpretation and sheer nonsense, while the child in her simplicity applied common sense and thus read aright.

    An honest approach to Scripture and the application of sound practical judgment will do more to make sense of the Bible than all the complex rules one may list. Rules have their place and we will be listing some of them, but let us insist at the outset that a responsible handling of Scripture begins with plain horse sense. It is not going too far to say that one should interpret the Bible the same way he does his daily newspaper. Such as a headline that appeared in our local paper, "TCU Too Much for SMU." By lifting it from its context in a superficial way that might be made to mean that TCU is a far better university than SMU and SMU has given up hope of catching up. But when one takes note that the headline appeared on the sports page and that the context tells of how TCU has defeated SMU in eight straight basketball games there is no question as to its meaning.

    That is how we are to make sense of the Bible. A passage is to be seen in terms of where it is found in the Bible, its historical situation, who is speaking and to whom and why, the type of literature, and other such considerations. But all this spells common sense. All this comes by an honest application of the mind to the passage. When Sir Isaac Newton was asked how he had learned so much about science, his answer was both simple and profound, By applying my mind to it. That is what a common sense, no nonsense study of the Bible is all about.

    I do not intend to make it simpler than it is. Much of the Bible is difficult to understand, but I am persuaded that 90% of the Bible can be understood well enough by a reasonable application of the ordinary rules of interpretation. To concede that literature is difficult is not to say that it is incomprehensible. Through diligence we can understand what is difficult.

    Clearly, there are passages in the Bible the meaning of which we may never know for sure. Take Paul's qualification for an elder that he be "married only once" or "the husband of one wife," depending on how it is translated. The probable meaning is not that he has to be married as many suppose, but that he is not to be a digamist, one who marries after the death of his wife, a matter that was deemed important in Paul's time. But we cannot be sure what it means, and so we must leave such questions open and not be dogmatic.

    And some passages may forever be obscure, such as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim. 3:16. As a factual statement it is clear enough, that Scripture is inspired of God, but who knows what "God-breathed" (the Greek for inspiration) really means? There is no basis in the passage for any theory of inspiration, only the fact of it.

    And some things in the Bible are so profound that we may spend a lifetime in study and never do more than scratch the surface, such as understanding the nature of Jesus Christ and of the kingdom of God.

    While it is true that we use the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is more to it than that. Literacy in the Bible is necessary to a proper understanding of it, and this comes through years of study and it includes more than the Bible itself. In time one must gain some knowledge of geography, archaeology, textual criticism, and especially of history, as well as some appreciation of biblical languages. A good commentary can go far in providing such information.

    And if we really do use our common sense we will know that a passage of Scripture can have only one meaning. We all often hear, "It may mean that but it also means the other." In a responsible approach to the Bible we must insist that the author intended but one meaning, whether he uses plain or symbolic language. Common sense dictates that no writer intended that his words convey two totally unrelated meanings. Yet we must be open to the likelihood that God intends a deeper meaning than was in the mind of the writer, but not a different meaning. So this question must be ever before us: what was in the mind of the writer, and what deeper meaning was in the mind of God?

    If we are conscious of this question we are less likely to succumb to a damaging error -- modernizing the Bible by lifting it out of its ancient, historical context, and along with it modernizing Jesus by separating him from his Jewish roots. We must remember that the inspired writers wrote in a language and culture far different from our own. They were not writing to us but to the people of their time, and it was their responsibility to be understood by them and not by us. While what they wrote centuries ago has meaning for us, it was not their intention to communicate to us, and so we have a great distance of time, culture, and history between us. So, another common sense rule is: there is no substitute for educated effort in making sense of the Bible.

    This appeal for a common sense hermeneutics may be better appreciated when one realizes that the Common Sense school of philosophy, which had its home in 18th century Scotland, greatly influenced our own history in the thinking of Thomas and Alexander Campbell. The Campbells were influenced by the likes of Dugald Stewart and Thomas Reid to challenge the mystical, theoretical approach to Scripture, which was common on the American frontier, with a common sense approach. This meant in essence that one's senses can be trusted to interpret the world as it really is. Common Sense thinkers insisted that all knowledge is reduced to what the mind perceives through its senses.

    And no specialized training or knowledge is necessary to perceive the reality of objects. The Common Sense school questioned "mystical" knowledge, and they would not accept any "theory" about truth or reality if their consequences were condemned by an appeal to common sense. For instance, Platonists have argued for centuries that reality is in "ideas" rather than objects, which only reflect the ideas. It is the idea of "sweetness" that is real, not sweet things like honey. Common Sense philosophers called this nonsense, insisting that there is no such thing as "sweetness" except in sweet things. A Platonist would even find the "idea" of football as a reality distinct from the actual game played on the field, which is but a shadow of what is real. And so with all ideas. Common Sense thinkers brand this as absurd, for there can be no game of football apart from flesh and blood football players.

    When the difference between these ways of thinking is applied to the Bible the result is amazing. It caused the Campbells to question "theoretical" and "experimental" religion, and even theology itself, for the systems of theology assumed more than the facts of Scripture allowed. Such as the doctrine of the Trinity, which our pioneers rejected. Trinitarian doctrines usually add up to more than what the Bible actually says about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

    Influenced by John Locke, a British philosopher who laid some of the groundwork for the Scottish school of Common Sense, Alexander Campbell contended that the Bible is a record of facts, historical facts, and are to be understood by the ordinary application of the mind. Common sense! A fact is no theory, supposition, or opinion, but, as Locke put it, something said or done. In the Bible God and his chosen envoys are always doing things and saying things. Things said, things done. All understandable, perhaps difficult sometimes, but nonetheless understandable, most of the time at least.

    All this is really a literal interpretation of the Bible, if that is the word to use, just as any other book or document of facts would be interpreted literally. A natural interpretation might be a better word. This allows for the occasional mystical, symbolic, or figurative language that occurs in all literature. When Jesus says, "He who drinks the water that I give will never thirst," we have a clearly-stated fact (something said), and while it contains mystical or symbolic language the meaning is clear enough. And we do not have to belabor the fact that there is symbolic language. Still we have in this statement from our Lord what is often true of the Bible: it is both simple and profound; it is understandable and yet beyond our understanding. We can spend a lifetime delving into the mystery of drinking the water that Jesus gives and pondering what it means never to be thirsty.

--the Editor