Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

Self | June 25, 2003 | Gargantua

[Gargantua]

A question has arisen among FReeper believers, and deserves a thread on which to air beliefs.

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

I believe in the perfect, complete, inherent and inerrant literal truth of all the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Also, does believing literally in the New Testament but perceiving the Old Testament as "symbolism" disqualify one from Salvation according to the Bible?

I am a born again, evangelical Baptist from New England.

[Gargantua]

May our discussion here be fruitful and Spirit-led. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

[atlaw]

Hey Gargantua. I sent a message to TonyRo76 that this thread was up to carry forward our digression in the origins thread. Hope we get some good posts.

I'm going to be in and out today, so my posting will probably be kind of sporadic, but I'll try to keep up. I like the way you set this thread up, by the way -- nice introduction.

[TonyRo76]

Hi Y'all! :)

Atlaw, thanks for the ping!
Gargantua, thanks for the prayer!

[LiteKeeper]

Please read The Doctrine of Scripture

[Gargantua]

According to the Bible, once one is saved by sincerely inviting Christ into his or her heart, salvation is assured. God is very jealous of all His children, and truly desires than none should die eternal death.

Whether we accept his "olive branch"... Jesus... is up to us, but once we make that choice, we belong to God.

It is possible, once saved, to continue to sin without repenting to the point where God will take our earthly life (to prevent us from corrupting the rest of the Church {those who believe in the salvation found in Christ's blood}), but we continue to be saved from eternal death even then.

To claim that the threat of hell is an invention of the church to "control" the masses is a claim which falls apart very quickly when we admit that this threat never stopped anyone from sinning, even devout Christians.

We all continue to sin despite the threat of hell, and that threat never has nor never will deter a man from lust or greed or anger or hatred, from jealousy or covetousness or sloth or gluttony. This is why we continue to need Jesus' blood to wash us that we may stand before God clothed in Christ's righteousness... for we have none on our own without Jesus.

So, even if hell were an invetion of the church intended to "control" the populace, it never worked and would have been a comlete failure as an ineffective ploy.

The Truth, however, (as the Bible makes clear) is that there is a heaven, there is a hell, there is a God and there is a Satan. These are not merely naively held superstitions, they are parts of a reality which transcends what we can see and/or prove as mere human beings. Which is where faith comes in:

For it is by Faith alone that one is saved; faith in God's Son Jesus, and faith in God's promise of Salvation through Christ as found in the Bible.

[Gargantua]

Unless I know them personally, I tend to shy away from other people's interpretations and explanations of scripture, as I generally prefer to receive such straight from either the Bible, or from those whom I know to be able to offer wise counsel.

BUT... this link is exceptional, and I'm very glad; both that you posted it, and that I read it. Thank you, and God bless you.

[LiteKeeper]

Additional articles by the same person

Page of links on Bible

[atlaw]

I fully agree that sin is an inevitability even with the threat of hell. But it cannot be denied that the threat itself is a powerful tool in coercing parishioner compliance and, upon the occurence of the inevitable sin, bringing the sinner back to the flock.

I am not arguing (which perhaps has been unclear) that hell as a first principal does not exist. The Biblical references to hell cannot be revised out of existence. (See, e.g., Matthew 25:41, 46, speaking unambiguously about "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" and "eternal punishment".)

The issue is perhaps better phrased as "what is the nature of hell" rather than "is there a hell." The nature of hell, in short, should not contradict what we otherwise know about the scope of forgiveness inherent in the teachings of Jesus. It is the nature of hell that, it seems to me, has been the subject of polictical manipulation (not to mention non-biblical literary manipulation).

The Christian approach to hell has taken many paths, including the concepts of annihilation, variations on the idea of purgatory (including an interesting one posed by C.S. Lewis), and hell as a non-spatial form of separation from God.

Augustine posited hell as a lake of fire in the literal sense, where there is a physical form for the soul that permits eternal physical punishment. The contradiction here with the actions of Jesus as both a moral and physical salve for the sinner are apparent. What Augustine posits is plainly sadistic, and therefore not easily reconciled.

I am curious what others think about the nature of hell, and what they base their conclusions upon.

[The_Reader_David]

As an Orthodox Christian I regard the very notion that one can believe a text literally (yes even the Holy Scriptures) as a denial of the whole problem of textual interpretation. Texts have meanings in the context of communities which use them. In the case of the Holy Scriptures, the Church is that community.

It is thus instructive to see how the early Fathers of the Church, who had the added advantage of speaking and writing in Greek, viewed the Scriptures. While the Gospels are plainly understood to be histories of Christ's earthly ministry and the Acts to be a history of the early days of the Church (and even here what does 'literal' mean? Like all histories with multiple sources, the Gospels appear at places to disagree about small details.), nonetheless, the Father did not take all of the Scriptures as 'literally true'. Taking as an example the first chapters of Genesis, St. Basil the Great wrote "It matters not whether you say 'day' or 'aeon' the thought is the same," while the other great Cappadocian, St. Gregory of Nyssa described the first two chapters of Genesis as "doctrines in the guise of a narrative."

As an Orthodox, of course, I regard the Church as present in the world today to be that which is commonly called the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nonetheless, I think the principle that a community determines the meaning of its texts applies operationally even to those sects which follow what they regard as the "literal meaning" of the Bible, since that 'literal meaning' is really determined by the common consent of their leaders and/or members. (Of course, I regard such sects as having appropriated our Scriptures.)

[Reagan79]

New Testament and Evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III always says, "a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean."

It is most valuable to understand the historical Judean context in interpreting scripture. Some scripture is not meant to be interpreted literally. The majority of passages are however clearly meant to be read literally. I don't think just because a portion of scripture is not meant for literal interpretation (at least the way we contempraries understand it) that it is not fully inspired, it just serves a deeper (beyond surface level) purpose.

Unless of course you read the King James Red Letter...haha : )

[SoothingDave]

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

The question you need to answer is "are all of the books of the Bible intended to be 'literal history'?"

If they are, then by all means read them as such. If they are not, then do not.

SD

[Gargantua]

"Augustine posited hell as a lake of fire in the literal sense, where there is a physical form for the soul that permits eternal physical punishment. The contradiction here with the actions of Jesus as both a moral and physical salve for the sinner are apparent."

Augustine was not alone. Jesus (for it was He who revealed to John the book of Revelation) in the book of Revelation also refers to Hell as a "lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20: 10,13-15

It is inappropriate in the extreme to deign to contradict the explicit Word of God. If God says that hell is a lake of fire where all the unsaved in Christ will be tortured forever (and He clearly does)...

...and regardless of how personally distasteful or "unfair" you may find this, it is nontheless God's own Truth. And anyone who attempts to change one word of this..., well, I refer you to Revelation 22:18,19. 'Nuff said.

[Gargantua]

"The question you need to answer is "are all of the books of the Bible intended to be 'literal history'?"

I needn't answer any such question. If you would like to pose such a question, please do..., that's what this thread is all about. God Himself answers all such questions, and we have His Word on it.

I refer, of course, to the Holy Bible. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Jesus (for it was He who revealed to John the book of Revelation) in the book of Revelation also refers to Hell as a "lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20: 10,13-15 It is inappropriate in the extreme to deign to contradict the explicit Word of God. If God says that hell is a lake of fire where all the unsaved in Christ will be tortured forever (and He clearly does)... ...and regardless of how personally distasteful or "unfair" you may find this, it is nontheless God's own Truth.

The idea that Revelation might just be using figurative language is not on your radarscope, huh?

John is describing visions that he is seeing and these, to most readers, have some meaning beyond the barest literal meaning.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I needn't answer any such question.

Then I am puzzled as to why you started this thread. If you have no need to examine your pre-conceptions, what is the point?

If you would like to pose such a question, please do..., that's what this thread is all about. God Himself answers all such questions, and we have His Word on it.

Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?

SD

[Gargantua]

"But it cannot be denied that the threat itself is a powerful tool in coercing parishioner compliance and, upon the occurence of the inevitable sin, bringing the sinner back to the flock."

I do deny it. The threat of hell never stopped anyone from sinning.

More to the point, neither is it the "threat of hell" which redeems one to God, or returns the sinner to the flock. Anyone who claims Jesus only because they fear hell is lost to hell. Fear of hell will delay neither sin nor sin's consequences.

If you, in your heart, truly love God and need Jesus as your Lord, then you are saved. Fear of hell is something which anyone with a brain should understand, but that fear saves nobody, nor does it guide their actions.

;-/

[RightWhale]

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history

To a degree they are historical, but the style is allegorical. It's not the events that are so important, but the meaning of the events, the story. Every event was given meaning, and that's what we need to study: the meanings. So, we might consider the OT and the NT to be equally historical, but also filled with metaphor. The whole can be taken literally, although some things are a little difficult to picture on the material earth. Or the whole can be taken as symbolic. You can do both.

[TonyRo76]

The Truth, however, (as the Bible makes clear) is that there is a heaven, there is a hell, there is a God and there is a Satan.

Agreed! I would add to that the words the ancient church agreed upon when God called together leading believers who met at Nicæa in 325 A.D.: “I believe in One God...creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.”

Just because we can't see something in the physical/natural world, doesn't mean it isn't part of God's creation.

[Gargantua]

"Then I am puzzled as to why you started this thread. If you have no need to examine your pre-conceptions, what is the point?"

First, we should all examine our pre-conceptions... myself included. However, I began this thread at the suggestion of other FReepers who felt we should have a thread on which these very topics could appropriately be discussed.

"Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?"

Given that the Book of Revelation is the last chapter in what is generally accepted by believers to be a book completely inspired by God as an entire, single work, I refer you to Revelation 22:18,19... where all are warned not to alter (add or take away) one word in this book, or suffer the consequences.

It is here where God thus instructs.

[Gamecock]

Great Question!

The way I see it, we must read the Bible in the context in which it is written. First and Foremost, the Word of our God. Inside of the Bible we have Prophecy, History, Wisdom, Poetry, etc. Each is to be taken in that context.

Now, the literal part. It is all literal in it's context. Christ clearly took the OT as literal, so will I. Once a person/denomination starts down the slippery slope of explaining away certain passeages, others fall like dominos Just look at the Presbyterian Church, USA, the United Methodists, and their journey down that slope.

Just my 0.02 cents

[SoothingDave]

"Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?"

Given that the Book of Revelation is the last chapter in what is generally accepted by believers to be a book completely inspired by God as an entire, single work, I refer you to Revelation 22:18,19... where all are warned not to alter (add or take away) one word in this book, or suffer the consequences.

Yes, and?

It is here where God thus instructs.

Instructs what? He instructs us not to alter the text. He does not say that every word written, every book is meant to be read as a literal history. That is what I asked.

You look at this book and say to yourself "God inspired it, therefore it must be literally historically true." I ask from where inside the text you base this notion.

A thing can be true without being a history. Do you recognize this? Truth can be expressed in other ways than in historically, scientifically verifiably true historical narrative.

Do you believe that?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Christ clearly took the OT as literal, so will I.

Examples?

SD

[Gargantua]

" I ask from where inside the text you base this notion."

Let's define "this notion".

This thread asks whether the Bible should be taken literally, not whether everything in it is intended as historical fact. Let's not confuse the two.

I get "my" notion from the part of the text where Jesus promises that God (His Father) will send a "helper" {the Holy Spirit} to aid us in understanding what is meant by what is written in the Bible.

I don't mean to say that, when Jesus offers the parable about the vineyard owner, He is hoping His apostles will learn about some guy with a farm...

...obviously, Jesus is relating a story with a "moral", which is the point of the story. So there are clearly parts ot Biblical text which are not intended as hstorical fact.

To attempt to intellectually interpret what any passage, or book, in the Bible means is a folly doomed to failure.

To understand the Bible requires being prayerfully led by God's own Holy Spirit to understand His meaning. It is here, I pray, where I find all Biblical instruction... directly from God.

Lastly, I would appreciate some indication from you that you are here to contribute to the fruitful (beneficial) searching of God's Holy Word, and not just trying to disrupt this Religion thread into an argument over diversionary wordsmithy.

I began this thread with a prayer that our discussion here would be fruitful and glorifying to God, and I remain with that intent.

[Gargantua]

"Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?"

You, Dave, are the only one on this thread who has suggested this, or written this. Why is that? Why are you arguing against a suggestion that you authored?

[SoothingDave]

This thread asks whether the Bible should be taken literally, not whether everything in it is intended as historical fact. Let's not confuse the two.

I'm sorry, I thought you said:

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

I was discussing this.

Lastly, I would appreciate some indication from you that you are here to contribute to the fruitful (beneficial) searching of God's Holy Word, and not just trying to disrupt this Religion thread into an argument over diversionary wordsmithy.

I was trying to answer, as you posed above, whether it is OK to consider certain books or passages as something other than literal historical truth. I thought we were discussing this.

Towards that aim, I was questioning why you hold this view. Now, it seems you do not hold this view. I am confused.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You, Dave, are the only one on this thread who has suggested this, or written this. Why is that? Why are you arguing against a suggestion that you authored?

Did I write this article and post it? Somebody did. I thought it was you, since your name appears at the bottom. It clearly says:

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

Please don't accuse me of making things up. I am not the only, or even the first one on this thread to suggest such a thing.

SD

[atlaw]

Actually, this is a combined reply to several posts, so bear with me.

On the topic of the nature of hell: You seem to be suggesting that hell is, in the end, a meaningless concept because people sin irrespective of the threat of eternal punishment.

While I agree that sin is, in effect, an inevitability, and that the threat of eternal punishment is not always a deterent, I think you may be too dismissive of the threat as a tool for coercing desired behavior. The threat of punishment, especially eternal punishment, has a powerful effect. It is integral to the teachings of Jesus, and I do not think the concept is used either in the Bible or by the Church as anything other than the stick side of the carrot and stick lesson.

As for the words in Revelation describing hell as a lake of fire, I am not at all certain that a literal interpretation is justified here. Revelations is itself an attempt to reduce to writing a vision (indisputably a difficult task), and to convey a powerful and effective message regarding the wages of sin. The pith and readily accessible imagery of a lake of fire is not surprising in this context. But descriptions of hell in other (and generally more generic) terms are frequent in the Bible, which, to me, significantly complicates the issue.

On the topic of literal interpretation of scripture: You point to the passage in Revelations concerning the "no edit" rule, but this passage raises more questions than it answers. The Bible has been subjected to a perpetual editing process since its compilation began.

For example, the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible differ significantly, with the books of Tobit, Judith, 1st Book Of Maccabees, 2nd Book Of Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, The Book Of Baruch, and additional parts of The Book Of Daniel and the Book of Esther non-existent in the Protestant Bible, and with many differing interpretations of New Testatment phraseology existing between the two Bibles. As another example, the discovery of the gnostic gospels at Nag Hammadi present some ticklish issues concerning the early church's efforts to hone the teachings of Jesus to a politically manageable few.

It seems to me that any attempt to suggest literal interpretation of the Bible as a general methodology must first contend with this history of the Bible as a heavily edited compilation of diverse writings.

[SoothingDave]

The threat of punishment, especially eternal punishment, has a powerful effect. It is integral to the teachings of Jesus, and I do not think the concept is used either in the Bible or by the Church as anything other than the stick side of the carrot and stick lesson.

The threat of eternal damnation can be the initial factor in a person's awakening. The "Born again" desire to locate an exact moment between "saved" and "unsaved" status finds this troublesome.

Desiring to repent and to eschew sin is the fundamental requirement. If this is motivated solely by a selfish desire to avoid punishment, this is not the final stage of Christian perfection. That would be when one desires to do good simply for the sake of pleasing God or in gratitude for the gift of life. But we all have to start somewhere, and the very real fear of a very real eternal punishment is where many begin.

Later, as they grow this "imperfect contrition" (motivated only for selfish reasons) can become more perfect.

SD

[Gamecock]

Fair enough!

First, he discussed Jonah as fact, not a story:

**Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one.**

He refers to the flood and the times leading up to the flood:


**Matthew 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark**

Third, he refers to Moses as an actual person, not a fictional character:

**John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.**

[SoothingDave]

First, he discussed Jonah as fact, not a story:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one

It appears that way. One could always argue that Jesus was using an allusion to the characters and stories in the Bible, without necessarily verifying their historical veracity. He knew His audience would be familiar, so He used it.

The second verse, however, about the men of Ninevah at judgment seems more direct. I'm inclined to give you this one.

He refers to the flood and the times leading up to the flood:

I am sure there was a huge flood. The Hebrew Bible is not the only old text which has this same story. My only beef with "literalists" is their insistence that the entire world was flooded. I think it was a massive flood, but not global.

Third, he refers to Moses as an actual person, not a fictional character:

I certainly do not think Moses is a fictional character. My only reservations, truly, are about the creation tales. And recognizing that there may be some exaggration in other stories.

SD

[Gamecock]

You know, you may be right, or I may be right. Let's look at a possible conversation at some point in the future.

< magic future seeing glasses>

God: "You believed everything that was written?"
Literalist: "Yes My Lord!"
God: (Chuckling) "My child, these were but stories to help you understand my ways!

versus

God: "Why didn't you take the Bible as my truth?"
Nonliteralist: "But, I thought they were just stories, symbols!"
God: Fool, I game you My Word and you didn't believe it!

< /magic future seeing glasses>

Somehow, I think I would rather err on the side of taking it as a literal work...

[SoothingDave]

Somehow, I think I would rather err on the side of taking it as a literal work...

Then again, maybe God won't take those naive enough to believe fairy tales are real into Heaven. It all depends on how you view it, doesn't it?

If God is going to be so unmerciful as to send me to hell cause I didn't think Noah took penguins on the Ark, then I guess I'll live with the consequences.

God gave us a brain as well as a heart. My faith will not be rocked if what I thought was allegory turns out to be true. On the other hand, literalists have to propose a God who distorts evidence in order to trap rational people into believing false things. (He planted fossil evidence, etc.)

This type of god isn't worthy of worship. I believe God speaks to us through all of creation and speaks to both our faith and reason. One need not abandon either in order to be one of His.

SD

[Gamecock]

I wasn't saying you wouldn't get in (that sounds too much like a Chick Tract) but maybe you won't get as good a seat. ;-)

[atlaw]

An interesting perspective, but again, I think too dismissive of the the threat of eternal punishment as an integral part of the message. Fear of God, for example, is itself an adjunct of the threat, for it is by the judgment of God that the punishment is meted out.

Your suggestion that there is a "final stage of Christian perfection" in which the threat of eternal punishment is no longer relevant also strikes me as unusual. Christian perfection is generally thought of as unacheivable in this life, with temptation and the testing of faith being the sine qua non of earthly existence. If there is one thing that Job teaches with startling clarity, it is that neither faith nor favor with the Lord can be taken for granted, and self-satisfaction with your personal state of development of your presumed relationship with God is perilous.

[SoothingDave]

I wasn't saying you wouldn't get in (that sounds too much like a Chick Tract) but maybe you won't get as good a seat. ;-)

Might have to work in civil service, delivering the mail or giving out driving licenses, or something. ;-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

Your suggestion that there is a "final stage of Christian perfection" in which the threat of eternal punishment is no longer relevant also strikes me as unusual. Christian perfection is generally thought of as unacheivable in this life, with temptation and the testing of faith being the sine qua non of earthly existence.

This final stage is rarely acheived on earth. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

My point was only that loving God and doing good because we don't want to go to hell is a mere first step. While we will always face temptation and such, it is hoped that we do grow some while on earth. And part of that growth should entail developing a sense of love and service higher than simple rump-covering.

SD

[atlaw]

I think we are in agreement that many Biblical passages cannot be taken literally without abandoning the reasoning faculties God gave us (e.g., the creation scriptures and Noah's travails). But I still view these passages as critically important to an understanding of God's message and, indeed, His creation. I don't think they can be dismissed as fairy tales (to the extent you were not simply using this as a colorful phrase).

[NYer]

I believe in the perfect, complete, inherent and inerrant literal truth of all the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation

In all human communication, the receiver must create meaning from the symbols (the message) used by the communicator. All Christians must discover the meaning intended by the author(s) of the books of the Bible to understand what God is revealing. The process of discovering meaning from the Bible is called hermeneutics. All Christians recognize that how we approach the Bible determines often what we take from it. Understanding what God would have us know from the Bible is made difficult by many factors:

• The Bible contains some very ancient books;
• Sometimes it is not even known who the author of a book really was;
• Not knowing for certain who an author was is complicated by the period of time in which an author lived;
• Since many authors were ancient Semites, their way of thinking and manner of expressing themselves differ from our own;
• Since we do not possess any original manuscripts of the books of the Bible, we have to contend with copying and editing which occurred over time;
• Then the issue of the multiplicity of human authors and editors complicates our understanding;
• Finally, the fact of both a divine and a human author makes understanding a challenge.

Hermeneutics (from the Greek word hermeneia which means speech or interpretation) is used to cover a broad scope in the process of understanding. It refers to

• interpretation by speech itself, as language interprets the mind;
• the process of translation from an unintelligible language to an intelligible one (cf. 1 Cor 12:10);
• interpretation by commentary and explanation.

Literal Sense

The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.

Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author's words convey.

Criteria to understand the literal sense:

• The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.
• The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel's history, etc.

An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John.

Literary Form of John 6:25-69:

Most scripture scholars today affirm that John's gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.

Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker's correction.

Literary History of John 6:25-69:

The apostle John was an eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus. He was one of the Twelve. He was also the last of the Apostles to write and to die. He refers to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

Interpretation of John 6:25-69:

Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.

Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended.

Jn 6:51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Jn 6:53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Jn 6:54

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Jn 6:55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Jn 6:56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Fuller Sense

But the Bible has God, a divine author, besides the human author. The Church teaches that there exists a more-than-literal meaning for understanding the Bible: a fuller sense.

Definition: The fuller sense is the deeper meaning intended by God as divine author. The fuller sense of Scripture, since it is the meaning intended by God, may not have been clearly known and intended by the human author.

Criteria to establish the fuller sense:

• Because the Catholic Church holds that there are two revealing authorities of Divine Revelation, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, the fuller sense of the Bible can be found in the authoritative interpretation of those revealing authorities. Some of these authorities are the New Testament itself, the Fathers of the Church, the Church in Council (cf. Acts 15 model), the "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them, etc. The Spirit of Truth is entrusted to faithful people as an authority in the Church.
• The fuller sense of any Scripture text has to be in agreement with the literal sense of the words. This fuller sense must be a consequential development of what the human author of the text intended to say.

An example of the fuller sense in the interpretation of Scripture is found by looking at the New Testament.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 23, Matthew says that the conception of Jesus by Mary was a virginal conception and took place so that the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14) might be fulfilled.

Isaiah gives no evidence that the prophet had Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary in mind. Isaiah does not speak of a virgin in the strict sense--merely an unmarried woman. Isaiah is not clear that he is even speaking to a distant future conception. The whole meaning of Isaiah's chapter appears to imply that the birth he prophesies will take place about 735 B.C. during the reign of King Ahaz the father of the future King Hezekiah. The words of Isaiah may have literally meant the conception of the future King Hezekiah. At the time of Isaiah's words in chapter 7, the mother of the future King Hezekiah would have been unmarried.

Matthew, on the other hand, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, creates an interpretation of Isaiah which is definitely not literal. Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah in a fuller sense: the unmarried woman is the virgin Mary, and God-with-us is Jesus.

Typical Sense

Following the lead of Paul himself (cf. Rom 5:14) there is another way for creating meaning in the Bible: the typical sense.

Definition: The typical sense of Bible texts is the deeper meaning that some elements (persons, places, things and events) of the Bible have because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow/shadow further things.

Criteria to understanding the typical sense:

• The typical sense of the Bible is created by continuing revelation or growth in the understanding the Word of God. Extra-biblical growth in understanding the Word of God is evidenced in the growth and development of the understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Types--the typical sense--are discovered in the New Testament, or in the agreement among "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them--the Fathers of the Church, in worship-- the liturgy--and its development through the ages, in the documents of the Church, etc. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is a revealing authority in the Church and reveals Himself to "faithful people" in all ages.
• The other criterion for discovering the typical meaning of Scripture is understanding that any type found in the text of the Bible has to be related to the anti-type (e.g., Christ to Adam). This confirms that God planned the relationship of the type to the anti-type.

An example of the typical meaning in the Bible is in Paul's writings. Paul appears to delight in establishing types between the New Testament and the Old Testament. In 1 Cor 10:6 Paul typifies those events which occurred to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai throughout the Exodus to those things that happen to Christians.

Another example of a type--the typical meaning in the Bible--is the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert. The evangelist John presents raising the bronze serpent as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

[atlaw]

"And part of that growth should entail developing a sense of love and service higher than simple rump-covering."

Well put.

[Polycarp]

Really?

Matt.7

[21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

[22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'

Matt.25

[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'

Luke.6

[46] "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:1,4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

2 Peter 2:15,20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

[Polycarp]

I believe in the ... inerrant literal truth of all the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Really?

John 6: 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for #38

[don-o]

Really?

John 6: 52

Yep. That is THE one which nailed down the sola scriptura as faulty foundation for this home grown Baptist.

I never found a coherent answer as to what our Lord was speaking, if not literally. Especially in light of Great and Holy Thursday. "This is my body...."

And ALL Christianity believed this until the invention of movable type and the printing press...

[FormerLib]

Is a parable a literal truth or one symbolic of a greater truth?

[NYer]

Thanks for #38

You're welcome!

Isn't it amazing how people in this forum just love to argue and nitpick while stepping over factual information? My Italian in-laws did this constantly. They would spend hours debating which route to take between two cities, completely disregarding the map with the proper route clearly indicated. Go figure!

[atlaw]

Isn't it amazing how some people on this forum struggle with questions that have persisted for thousands of years, while others on this forum are certain that they have, snug in their pocket, the complete and certain truth?

Be cautious of your certainty. And be patient with those who are unwilling to be so presumptuous.

[ET(end tyranny)]

For it is by Faith alone that one is saved; faith in God's Son Jesus, and faith in God's promise of Salvation through Christ as found in the Bible.

Matthew 7 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Jesus made the following prediction:

Matthew 24:11 - And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.12 - And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

The word "iniquity" comes from the Greek word "anomia". Thayer's Greek lexicon defines it this way:

BDB/Thayers # 458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4060 1, transgression of the law 1; 15 1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it 1b) because of violating it 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

And Strong's Lexicon defines it: "illegality (i.e. violation of the law)"

Basically, Jesus predicted, that because of false prophets, illegality or violation of the law and a condition of without law will abound.

Looks like he was right on target.

[ET(end tyranny)]

As an Orthodox Christian I regard the very notion that one can believe a text literally (yes even the Holy Scriptures) as a denial of the whole problem of textual interpretation. Texts have meanings in the context of communities which use them. In the case of the Holy Scriptures, the Church is that community.

The community of the Old Testament, would have attended synagogues, and at the time of Jesus the only scriptures available were the Old Testament.

But, you are correct in that we should take into account the mindset of the people in those days. For instance Paul:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What did Paul mean by 'new creature'?

2937 ktisis ktis'-is from the root 2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):--building, creation, creature, ordinance.

1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
a) the act of creating, creation
b) creation i.e. thing created
1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
a) anything created
b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted
from idolatry to Judaism was called)
c) the sum or aggregate of things created
c) institution, ordinance

2936 ktizo ktid'-zo probably akin to 2932 (through the idea of proprietorship of the manufacturer); to fabricate, i.e. found (form originally):--create, Creator, make.

1) to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island
a) to found a city, colony, state
2) to create
a) of God creating the worlds
b) to form, shape, i.e. to completely change or transform

Converting from idolatry to Judaism, showing God's proprietorship over us his creations.

[Dynamo]

"I am confused"

We could tell.

First you took a question posed by Gargantua, and tried to imply that it was a statement instead of a question, then you asked another question of your own, and claimed it was an answer.

That would confuse anybody. Dave.