Some Christians have Never Taken the Book Literally

James Alexander, PhD

My seminary studies were largely in a moderate (American Baptist) and a more progressive (Roman Catholic) seminary. My degree is in historical theology. Let me tell you, it was eye opening.

My background was firmly in fundamentalism (a story I have told elsewhere). In my studies, I learned many things that, let us say, troubled me.

I recalled when I first met the idea that the Early Church probably didn’t buy the notion of the atonement that I had ingrained in me at church. Or when I discovered that the early Christians undoubtedly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Look at the unbiased evidence (as much of such as exists) is all I can say. The history. It’s not a perfect account, but it is the best we’ve got.

Then there was the Bible. It all hinged on that didn’t it.? The big whammy came to me when I discovered that the Early Christians saw it in many ways. And, perhaps, the way I learned to view it wasn’t the majority view at all. No. Not one, but four major types of hermeneutics appeared in the Early Church: the literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.

Literal

This is the idea that the biblical text requires acceptance at face value. It should be taken in a way that gets at the plain meaning. In the early church, the notion is most closely associated with St, Jerome in the 4th century. We still see it today. This discussion between W.A. Creswell and Bill Moyers gets at the heart of this position:

Criswell: “There are no historical errors in the Bible. All that we know confirms the truth of the word of God.”

Moyers: You call yourself a literalist. How do you define that?

Criswell: “Yes. I just think the Bible literally is true. Just from the beginning to the end of it.”

Moyers: “Doctrinally?”

Criswell: “Yes.”

Moyers: “Scientifically?”

Criswell: “Yes.”

Moyers: “Historically?”

Criswell: “Historically, yes.”

Moyers: “In every way?”

Criswell: “In every way.”

Moral

For this view we look to Webster Dictionary. Here the concern is not so much with the actuality of what occurred, but the moral lesson it teaches. From Webster:

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments; b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem; c : conforming to a standard of right behavior: d: sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation; e: capable of right and wrong action a moral agent.

Allegorical

This refers to the use of a symbolic fictional narrative to convey a deeper meaning. The narrative could be a fable, myth, a historical recitation of questionable accuracy, and so on. Here the notion is that there are two meanings, and the most plain, may well not be the point of the account of story. (See also fable, parable, and allegory.). Some good examples are Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, or Dante’s The Divine Comedy. Biblical examples include the Prodigal Son or Pearl of Great Price.

Anagogical

The fourth method of interpretation in the Early Church Father’s and Mothers is the anagogical. The root word here is analogy.

An analogy is a comparison made to show how two things are similar for explanation or clarification. Although the things compared are physically different, the analogy identifies how they are figuratively similar. People use analogies to link unfamiliar ideas with common ones, making complex or abstract ideas easier to understand.

No doubt there is some similarity here to allegory. Look at it this way. An analogy draws upon a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. The comparison is rooted in the similarity, even when they may seem, in some respect dissimilar.

An allegory is a story, of, perhaps an image, or poetry or prose that illustrates an idea that is not directly plain from the purpose of the allegory. It deals with symbolism, or a more “hidden” meaning. A good example is The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. A Biblical example might be where believers are called “first fruits.”

So… Of What approach did the Church Fathers and Mothers make the most use?

The early fathers saw like we do, that there were historical problems, conflicting accounts, and no doubt contradictions in the Bible, They tried to harmonize them in view of the fact that they saw the Bible as inspired, The Fathers “claimed that points of obscurity or even contradiction within the Bible provided an opportunity for the Spirit to work in a Christian heart”. The Fathers tried to harmonize passages, but at times had to deny the literal sense of the text. That is to say, the “inerrant truth” of a passage was often not in the literal sense, of a passage, but in its moral or allegorical one. (See Were the Fathers Inerrantists?)

There is no doubt that not all The Fathers viewed the text literally. Origen (2nd century) was quite clear:

Origen in his Stromata, book x. expresses himself in the following manner: “the source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or external part of Scripture. Those who do so shall not attain to the kingdom of God. Let us therefore seek after the spirit and the substantial fruit of the word which are hidden and mysterious.” And again “the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.”

And

Clinging to the flesh [that is, the literal meaning] of Scripture opens up the door for many evils. “Those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” So, then, let us seek the spirit of Scripture and the fruits that are not readily apparent to the eye. For the fruit of the Spirit is found in Scripture only with great effort, exertion, and careful study.

This more contemporary commentator makes it even clearer:

Before the modern period, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. 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. (For more, see this.)

No doubt, the Fathers and Mothers believed that the Spirit inspired the scriptures. They accepted that they pointed to Christ. But early Christians differed widely in the details of interpretation. The main disagreement was between (broadly) Alexandrians and their disciples, followers of a more allegorical view, and the Antiochenes and their followers adhering to a basically historical interpretation.

So, it is today. Seminaries, denominations, and individuals differ in how they approach it all. In their Statement of Faith, the National Association of Evangelicals state, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” The Episcopal Church has a collect which reads, “Blessed Lord, who caused all holy scriptures to be written for our learning: grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them…”

I don’t really care for the Statement from NAE. The Collect I like. I like it, because, although it says I should learn, mark, digest, the word, it is inward. It doesn’t tell me how I must take it.

I have also written about why I personally do not take the Bible literally. You might want to take a look. For a good overview of the topic, and a listing of some other prominent dissenters, see good ‘ol Wikipedia.