Should the Bible be interpreted literally?
Posted on April 14, 2007
Filed Under Bible 'Quick Notes', Matt Clifton
by Matt Clifton
Generally, this is a question asked by folks who find something objectionable about the Bible! However, there are also honest souls who are truly seeking to know and do God’s will. For them, the question may remain. Should we interpret the Bible literally?
The general rule of biblical interpretation is that a passage should be interpreted literally unless there is some reason in the context we should interpret it otherwise. For example, when Jesus says, “Take My yolk upon you” (Matt. 11:29), He does not literally mean to place a wooden harness make for oxen upon our shoulders. The context provides the cues for properly understanding the passage.
Other passages are clearly meant to be taken literally. For instance, Jesus says in Mark 16:16:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
There is nothing in the surrounding context of this passage to encourage a metaphorical interpretation. Instead, Jesus is plainly stating the terms of salvation. It is a direct command, no metaphorical figures being presented.
All written works contain some among of information which is not to be taken literally. To say “none” of the Bible is to be taken literally is very inaccurate. To say that “all” of the Bible should be taken literally is also inaccurate. But the careful student will be able to discern between the literal and the non-literal passages in scriptures through diligent study.
For more reading on this topic, see Can We All Understand The Bible Alike?
RELATED POSTS:
Who’s on trial: Mary Winkler, or the church of Christ?
The Bible & Evolution: Can we believe both?
Taming the tongue: What’s in the well will be in the bucket
Who leads congregations of the Lord’s church?
Have you turned the spigot on?
Comments
One Response to “Should the Bible be interpreted literally?”
Leave a Reply
Polls
Loading ...-
But at the same time on this subject(Pastor) the “flagship” weekly periodical of the instrumental church of Christ and Christian churches constantly use the term “Senior Pastor” to refer to the minister, evangelist or preacher in a congregation. Their excuse is that those words are what the men being mentioned in these articles call themslves. It’s also evident that this is the nomenclature that the “Christian Standard” editorial staff prefer to specify as these men’s station in the church.
It’s seems to me that Jesus set the precedence and example in His teachings about what men should or should not call themselves: something about “standing on the corners….” etc.