There are many ways to look at the Bible. I’ve heard it said that some people believe that, unless the Bible specifically allows something, we shouldn’t do it. Other people are just the opposite—unless the Bible expressly forbids an action, we are free to do that action.
Some people see the Bible as a book that reflects two aspects of God. They claim that the Old Testament gives us a God of judgment and strict demands, while the New Testament reflects a God of love and compassion. Personally, I see the love of God throughout the pages of the Old Testament, and I also see the judgment of God throughout the New Testament.
Some people insist the Bible should be read more as an allegory than literal. They insist that most of the stories of the Bible are exactly that—stories that are designed to give us a better understanding of God and ourselves. Such an idea dismisses the miracles of the Bible as actual events, instead seeing them as depictions of how God can work in our lives and in our world. The miracles are given to draw us to God.
Then there are the literalists. The extreme view is that every passage in the Bible is to be taken literally without any possibility of allegory or symbolism.
I fall more in the camp of pragmatic literalism. I recognize that a lot of what is written in the latter half of Daniel and almost the entire book of Revelation is allegorical, symbolic of events that will take place in our future. However, I tend to believe the miracles actually occurred as reported. In understanding the miracles as literal, they do a better job of showing us God’s majesty and interaction in our world and in our lives than if we take them symbolically.
The Jesus Seminar and the Jesus Project
About thirty years ago, a group was founded by Robert Funk called the Jesus Seminar. The group was made up of 50 Biblical scholars and 100 or so laypeople. The express purpose of the group was to determine through modern scholarship the historicity of Jesus. They had the presupposition that the Gospels did in fact tell about the historical Jesus, but they also believed that the Gospels were embellished by the authors to give the man Jesus a divine nature and calling. Quoting from Wikipedia, “According to the Seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.”
The Seminar would vote on the sayings of Jesus from the Gospels, using color-coded beads to indicate whether they believed Jesus actually said it, said something similar, didn’t say it but the saying conveys Jesus’ thoughts, or simply has no tie to Jesus at all. They used modern methods of study and sought to peel back the layers to get to the real Jesus.
The Jesus Project was begun in 2007 and had a five-year purpose to determine whether Jesus ever existed at all. Also using modern criteria for study and determining the validity of the Gospels and the Bible, they were committed to discovering if there ever was an historical Jesus.
Not unlike the starship Enterprise, the five year mission was cut short. The Project disbanded in 2009 under the claim that the project just wasn’t being productive enough.
I don’t question the sincerity of the Seminar or the Project. I believe they really wanted to get to the bottom of their question. Certainly, healthy skepticism is a good thing. But so is healthy faith.
The reason why the projects failed in their efforts is because they were seeking to answer faith issues without using faith. No matter how sincere and dedicated they were to their task, the majority of the men and women of these groups came into the group with preconceived notions and ideas. The fact that one has to determine the historicity of Jesus implies that one is already questioning the historicity. While the Seminar seemed to accept the historicity of Jesus, they completely rejected the possibility of His divinity. Strip away the divinity of Jesus and all you have is a ethicist who lived a long time ago and, somehow, managed to have a profound effect on Western civilization and the world.
Is it possible that a merely human Jesus could have had the impact He did on our world? Yes, it’s possible. We need only look at Buddha and other Eastern wise men to see that such a person can have a major effect on the world.
If it is one’s view that Jesus, while historical, should not be taken literally in the Gospels, assuming that said people claim to be Christian, then we have to ask, “Who or what exactly are you following?” If the Gospels are not accurate, then who’s to say which Jesus in the Bible is to be believed and which is not to be believed? To seek to remove the divinity of Jesus is to deny some of the very deepest core elements of the Gospel message. To decide categorically, even if following the latest means of critical study methods, that parts of the Gospels are valid and other parts aren’t strikes me as being very similar to the person who claims to believe the Bible but ignores the parts that run contrary to the life they want to live. Such a view of Scripture runs toward the idea of convenience and personal preference rather than God’s word to a lost and needy world.
Why I Prefer a Literal Interpretation
My wife, children and I lived in Ohio for a year. While we were there, we had some very kind neighbors who were of the Mormon faith. One day, I asked her if I could get a copy of Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. As I understand it, these are both writings beyond the Book of Mormon that Latter Day Saints use as additional revelations from God since the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It took a few days, but she brought me the two books along with a copy of the Book of Mormon. I thanked her for the literature and began to thumb through them.
In the Book of Mormons she gave me, there was included a list of questions that are commonly asked by non-Mormon people such as myself. One of the questions was, “Is the Book of Mormon inspired by God?” For an answer to that question, the list referred me to a verse found in the Book of Mormon that confirmed it was and is the inspired word of God.
There was just one problem with that. I didn’t believe it was the inspired word of God before I looked at that verse, and proving to me that it was inspired by referring to it didn’t bolster the argument. The New Testament has a couple of verses that attest to it being the inspired word of God, but if someone asked me to prove the Bible is the inspired word, I would have to go outside the Bible to do so.
All this is to say that my reasons for preferring a literal translation stems in large part from what the Bible says about itself and about God. However, I believe that many people who may disagree with a literal interpretation are nonetheless believers in the Bible as a holy book. Because of that, I feel more comfortable referring to various verses to explain my literal interpretation.
I prefer the literal interpretation first of all because the Bible tells me that with God, all things are possible (cf. Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). While the verses I referenced are in the context of only God can save us (it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven), I believe the verses are consistent with the overall message of the Bible that God is limited only by His choices and His holiness. Since I believe that all things are possible through God, then I am prepared to accept the miracles of the Bible as being literal events, not allegorical in nature and not easily explained away as natural occurrences and/or social events that spontaneously occur.
I also prefer the literal interpretation of Scripture because of Jesus’ words on the last night He spent with His disciples before His betrayal. “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you. . . But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears . . . He will bring glory to Me by taking what is Mine and making it known to you” (John 14:26; 15:13-14). The ministry and the power of the Holy Spirit worked in the writing of the Bible as He reminded those who wrote it of what is Jesus’, remembering that Jesus is the Word made flesh (cf. John 1:1, 14). This tells me that the Bible is an accurate presentation of everything Jesus said and did, and is also an accurate presentation of God’s actions in our world from the beginning of time (Genesis 1:1) to the end of time (Revelation 22:21).
With that in mind—God’s ability to do what He wishes to do, and the Holy Spirit’s ability to bring to our remembers the things and the words of Christ—I find it more than plausible to accept the Bible as a literal book unless it clearly indicates otherwise. This is true particularly in the recording of miracles.
The Parting of the Red Sea
The parting of the Red Sea is a crucial event in God setting His people free from Egypt. It is found in Exodus 14. The short version is that the Israelites had left Goshen in Egypt with the wealth of the nation and were now approaching the Red Sea. Pharaoh had by now gathered his wits about him and realized the ramifications to the nation of Egypt if the Israelites were allowed to simply walk away. He pursued them with his army, and the people of Israel soon found themselves trapped between the Red Sea and the Egyptian army. God instructed Moses to stretch out his arms. When Moses obeyed, the sea parted and the people of Israel walked across the seabed which was dry. The pillar of God stood between the Egyptians and the Israelites until the people had safely crossed. When the pillar moved to once again lead the people of Israel, Pharaoh and his army immediately resumed their pursuit. As the army came to the middle of the Red Sea, the division of the sea ended and the army of Egypt was destroyed as it drown under the rapidly closing waters. The Bible attributes all the events of the crossing as God’s direct intervention and protection.
I have heard it said that the parting of the Red Sea is really the parting of the Sea of Reeds, which is a much smaller, shallower body of water more akin to a wetland than an arm of the Indian Ocean. I have also heard it explained that it is not unusual (though extremely rare) that winds in the Middle East can sometimes come up suddenly with such force as to be able to move large masses of water for a period of time. In other words, there are those who try to explain away this miracle as a natural occurrence rather than a miraculous act of God.
Here’s my problem with that. Let’s suppose that the crossing took place in the Sea of Reeds rather than the Red Sea. Let’s suppose that the body of water was shallow enough that the people could have forded it, meaning it was no more than waist deep. Here’s the thing. First, if that was the case, then there wouldn’t have been such a panic among the people. Yes, the going would have been slower by wading into a swamp to flee from the pursuing army, but it was a relatively safe means of escape. And, just as it would have slowed the people of Israel, it would have been extremely difficult for an army of chariots and horses to make its way through such a swamp. The danger would have been there, but not as great as if they had come upon an impassable body of water.
Second, Exodus 14:22 says, “and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left” (emphasis added). Assuming there was a strong wind that suddenly came up and separated the wetlands, it is highly unlikely that the sudden wind would immediately dry up the soggy bottom of the swamp. Yet, that is reported what happened. Imagine the difficulty of trying to cross a swamp even if the water had all been drained away. It would take days if not weeks to dry the ground up sufficiently to be declared dry ground.
Third, the water created a wall of water to the left and the right of the passing people. I suppose that water only a foot or two deep could, under the right conditions, be blown back in such a way as to create a “wall” of perhaps four or five feet tall, maybe slightly taller. And, the wind would have to be very localized to create such an occurrence. No to mention what such a strong headwind would have done to people trying to walk through it. Maybe it was a tail wind creating the wall of water. Maybe so. At any event, the winds would have had to have been extremely powerful to create the natural conditions, making the walking across treacherous at best. Who wants to go walking in hurricane-like winds?
Fourth, there is the drowning of the Egyptian army. If the water was relatively shallow, shallow enough to allow people to wade through it, how is it possible that the entire army of Egypt would be destroyed when the waters rushed back together? The waters probably would have created an immediate flood of higher water, but the flood would have quickly subsided as the water returned to its normal level. It’s probable that trained soldiers would have been able to survive such conditions.
Finally, let’s suppose that the natural occurrence of the exceedingly strong wind over a relatively shallow body of water was what is recorded as the parting of the Red Sea. Even given all that, the timing of the events would have to be explained away as more than coincidental. Even if we accept the events as a natural occurrence, we would still have to acknowledge that the omniscience of God was demonstrated in that He knew to bring His people to the right place at the right time in order to affect their successful escape from the hard-charging army.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand
In Matthew 14:13-21 (also, Mark 6:32-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:1-13), we have the record of Jesus feeding at least 5000 people with a boy’s small lunch. If it is so, it was truly a miraculous event.
But I’ve heard it explained away in this manner. Jesus had been teaching a group of people. The lesson had gone on most of the day without a break. Finally, Jesus tells His disciples that they need to feed the masses standing before them. There was no food in the place, no catering to be called in, and the cost of the meal would have been astronomical, even if they could find enough food to feed everyone.
Scouting around, Andrew brings a young boy with a lunch of two fish and five loaves of bread. I’ve heard it said the fish was more like a fish paste that was to be spread on the bread, possibly something like tuna fish salad. Be that as it may, such a small amount of food would only satisfy the young boy, but wouldn’t make a dent in a crowd of at least 5000 men. The Bible says Jesus prayed over the food, the disciples then began distributing what they had to the masses and, after everyone had eaten their fill, the disciples then gathered up 12 baskets of leftovers. A miracle?
There are those who say that a large number of those who had come to the lessons had brought with them some food. They were prepared to eat their meal, but they were so taken by the generosity of the young boy, that each person began to share with those around him and, soon, a communal meal was being eaten. Everyone sharing and eating, it was a great time. Apparently, those who had brought food brought enough to feed everyone and then some. But that’s how the miracle is explained away.
It’s possible. But it is also quite possible that the vast majority of people who were there that day had come not expecting to stay as late as they did, and most were without food. And, given that Jesus is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, had the capability to do exactly as the Bible says. If, with God, all things are possible, then feeding a crowd of 5000 men with a small boy’s lunch is not beyond the realms of possibilities.
The Virgin Birth
“When a man and a woman love each other, . . . “ So the story begins. Almost everyone who’s reading this knows where babies come from, and they know that it takes two to make a baby. The idea of Jesus being born of a virgin defies all we know about biology. Those who dismiss this as a possibility point instead to the compassion and love between Mary and Joseph and the events surrounding Jesus’ birth to demonstrate the “miracle of Christmas.”
But, again, that is assuming that the Creator and Giver of life was not able or willing to bring life into the womb of a young virgin. A virgin birth is a wonderful way to demonstrate the full humanity and the full divinity of the Son of God. The miracle of the birth is not just in the fact that God created the fetus in the womb, but that He created a son without the use of the Y chromosome that determines gender in the first place. Mary’s egg would not have had a Y chromosome; as a virgin, she would have had to give birth to a daughter.
Again, those who find a literal interpretation of Scripture as being too unreasonable and impractical can dismiss the miracle of Jesus’ birth, but to the literal interpreter, this story confirms from the outset the uniqueness of the One sent to bring us life, to free us from sin and to guide us into the light. It is this opening presentation of the divine nature of Jesus that lets us know that He was and is in every sense of the word, to use Simon’s words, “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). This birth, so out of the ordinary from anything ever before seen or heard of, is a great statement of faith and demands that we either embrace Him for Who He is or seek to dismiss Him as something or someone less than He proclaimed Himself to be.
Conclusion
I could continue parsing each miraculous event of the Bible and the various claims, but I hope I’ve made my point. Should we take the Bible literally? I believe the answer is a very clear and resounding “Yes.” To hold that it is less than literal is to open the Bible to all sorts of questions and doubts. It lowers the Bible from the truly inspired word of God to just a well-written book about a person who may or may not have been the Christ, who may or may not have been the Son of God, who may or may not have been divine in nature while also being human. The denial of the literal interpretation is, in my way of thinking, the denial of the Bible as being anything more than just a really good guide on how to live and act in our world.
© 2018 Glynn Beaty