THERE are
Jews today who still tie phylacteries (little boxes with biblical
verses) on their foreheads and hands. Are they guilty of taking
their scriptures (Dt. 6:8) too literally? Most of us would think
so. There are sections of Scripture that are not expected to be
taken literally. But does that mean that we must not read our
Bibles literally?
An article by Karen Armstrong, published recently in The Straits
Times, urges us to take this direction. But are we to take her
suggestions literally? She faults the literal reading of Scripture
as the unhelpful result of modern science's influence when she
writes, "Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of
the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular
results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path
to knowledge." She therefore appeals to pre-modern times
when "Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical
interpretations of scripture". We need to examine this more
closely.
One of the centres in the ancient world that promoted the allegorical
reading of Scripture was Alexandria in Egypt. And one of its famous
sons was Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenistic Jew of great learning.
Philo was familiar with how Greek philosophers had tried to interpret
ancient Greek poetry depicting the unacceptable behaviour of the
gods, by interpreting them allegorically. As a Jew deeply influenced
by the fashionable Greek culture of his day, and he was not a
Christian, Philo tended to read his scriptures allegorically.
He therefore saw the account of the fall of the human race in
Gen. 3 allegorically, where Adam, Eve and the serpent represent
various spiritual realities.
However, even the allegorically-inclined Philo did not encourage
his fellow-Jews to give up the literal observance of the Law.
In fact, he argued that to think that spiritual and moral virtue
could be achieved without obeying the Law literally would be arrogant
and misguided. He elaborated, "We shall be ignoring the sanctity
of the Temple and of a thousand other things if we are going to
pay heed to nothing except what is shown us by the inner meaning
of things."
It is important that we interpret the Bible properly. As Paul
wrote to Timothy, we need to be like a "workman who does
not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth".
(2 Tim. 2:15). To do this we must answer two basic questions.
What is the Bible?
Our starting point is creedal - our fundamental belief - that
the Bible is the "God-breathed", Holy Spirit inspired
Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In this sense, it is "Holy
Scriptures" (as our Methodist Articles of Religion say) and
has authority over our lives. It should not be reduced to an anthology
of folk tales which we are free to interpret in any allegorical
way we like.
As a collection of 66 books, the Bible contains different types
of literature. When the Risen Christ explained the Scriptures
to His disciples, He went through the Law of Moses, the Prophets
and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44-45). The Bible has different sections
in the Bible that may have to be interpreted differently. A didactic
(teaching) passage e.g., the epistles of Paul, would have to be
interpreted differently from some of the poetry of the Psalms.
We know that the rivers have no hands to clap (Ps. 98.8), but
we also know that, "And whatever you do … do it all
in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17), means what it
plainly says.
Because the Bible is God's Word, Bible reading is a spiritual
act. It requires the illumination of the Holy Spirit, described
in Lk. 24:45 as Jesus opening our minds. Without God's enabling,
we cannot truly understand the Bible.
This brings us to the second question we must answer:
How should we read the Bible?
We need to humbly turn to Church Tradition and its long history
of Bible interpretation. The ancient Church Fathers are particularly
useful and authoritative guides.
They taught that the Bible should be read in four ways: literally,
allegorically, devotionally and ethically. We do well to pay close
attention to them.
THE first two ways demonstrate what was discussed above - that
the Bible uses different kinds of literature and therefore needs
different tools for proper interpretation. In the early church,
there were two major centres of biblical interpretation: Alexandria
(allegorical school) and Antioch (literal school). Both had their
illustrious champions. Antioch focused on the careful study of
the text, context, language, history and culture in order to arrive
at the meaning of the text - quite akin to modern biblical scholarship.
Alexandria focused more on the underlying spiritual meaning of
texts.
In reality though, it was not an either-or option. Origen, the
biggest allegoriser of all, appreciated the literal meaning of
texts, while the interpreters in Antioch were aware that biblical
texts may have several layers of meaning. This careful and multi-pronged
approach would do better justice to biblical texts.
For example, we may not take some
parts of the Sermon on the Mount literally - e.g., plucking our
eyes or cutting our hands to fight temptation ( Mt. 5:29-30),
but that does not mean that the rest of the Sermon should not
be approached literally. The listeners of Jesus and the early
readers of the New Testament would have had fewer problems than
we in deciding when to use which interpretive tool.
The Fathers' devotional and ethical ways of reading the Bible
focus on the effect our Bible reading should have on us. It should
produce godliness and devotion to God, and holiness in life. The
issue is not just how we interpret the Bible but also how we live
as a result. Reading the text, listening to God, and obeying God
are parts of a whole process in which we approach the Bible (cf.
Mt. 7:24-27).
We are thus to approach the Bible with multiple tools, and a literary
reading of Scripture is one of the key tools. As John Wesley wrote,
we should take the "plain, literal meaning of any text, taken
in connexion with the context". And as we approach the Bible,
we would realise that more important than our reading and interpretation
of the Bible is its reading and interpretation of us.
QUOTE:
BIBLE INTERPRETATION
'We need to humbly turn to Church Tradition and its long history of Bible interpretation. The ancient Church Fathers … taught that the Bible should be read in four ways: literally, allegorically, devotionally and ethically. We do well to pay close attention to them.'