Articles
Critical Thinking Skills - 5
“You can’t take the Bible literally” is a common view of Scripture. Unfortunately, this is just another example of flawed critical thinking, just a vague generalization that seeks to neutralize the Bible without meaningful analysis. It seems to be the fallback position whenever one might encounter some aspect of divine law or Biblical history that seems extreme or nonsensical.
For example, many years ago I heard someone try to dismiss Israel’s sacrificing their children to Molech as not being literal. They argued that it was a mere ceremonial dedication, possibly a representative burning of a lock of hair or some other symbol of the child. Many passages describe this practice, but note how the following increase in specificity, leading to an inevitable conclusion:
Lev 20:2 – “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones.’” There is some ambiguity as to what “gives to Molech” might mean. But read further.
2 Kgs 23:10 – “And he [King Josiah, jj] defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech.” So now we have “pass through the fire” in addition to “give to.”
Jer 19:4-5 – “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place … and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind).” “Burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings” equates to filling the Valley of the Son of Hinnom with the “blood of the innocents.” This clearly refers to the death of the children.
Ezk 16:20-21 – “Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?” These verses are not ambiguous, it is in error to say that Israel did something “symbolic” instead of what the text actually says – that they murdered their children by offering them as burnt offerings to Molech and/or Baal.
So, considering the evidence, why would someone believe something other than what Scripture says? Perhaps out of pure ignorance. We’ve all at times drawn a conclusion based on one or more passages but overlooked clarifying details revealed in others. For many years when I read the word “wine” in the Bible, I automatically assumed that it meant “fermented” (and it does in scores of passages). But in other references the term refers to fresh juice from the grape: “Gladness is taken away, and joy from the plentiful field; in the vineyards there will be no singing, nor will there be shouting; no treaders will tread out wine in their presses; I have made their shouting cease” (Is 16:10). Further, consider the term “winepress”; obviously, the meaning is pressing juice from the grape which must then be processed to achieve potable fermentation. Context must determine whether the generic “wine” implies the specific “alcoholic.” For example, shall we conclude that Jesus provided tens of gallons of alcoholic “wine” at a wedding feast where a large amount had already been consumed? Not likely given the copious warnings in Scripture against drunkenness.
But others simply object to what the Bible teaches on a given subject and assert willy nilly that something is figurative when it is actually literal, or vice versa. However, the Bible is no different than other literary works in that the Holy Spirit employs common mechanisms of writing: similes, metaphors, synecdoche, figures of speech, hyperbole, etc. Why? Because this is the way human beings normally communicate. OT Hebrew and NT Greek were common languages, not special heavenly coding.
Literal/figurative. An example of a literal event in Scripture that some make figurative or limited is the flood. In an attempt to blend the Bible record with what they believe is contradictory scientific evidence (or simply out of incredulity that the entire earth could actually be covered with water), some insist that the flood was a local inundation, not a global event. Yet, the language is unambiguous: “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air” (Gn 6:7); “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (6:13); “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made” (7:4); “And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth; birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing … and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground … they were destroyed from the earth” (7:19-23). If language means anything at all, the entire planet was covered in water.
Figurative/literal. Jesus’ use of figurative language, which was misunderstood by both the masses and His closest disciples alike, is well documented in the Gospels. But one contemporary practice that arises from a like failure is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus in John 6 accuses the multitudes whom He had miraculously fed the previous day of seeking Him merely to satisfy their carnal appetite (6:26). In trying to impress upon them their true need for Him on a deeper level, He uses the graphic figure of cannibalism: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (6:53-55). Two mistakes are made by Catholic theologians: 1) the assumption that Jesus is talking about sacraments, or the Lord’s supper, and 2) dismissing the figurative meaning of Jesus’ words. This same mistake was made by the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking (6:52), but Peter clearly understood His intended meaning – He was speaking of consuming the truth He was teaching, not His flesh (6:63, 67-69). Good Bible study begins with good critical thinking.
