YOUNG@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA (Abigail Young) (01/19/90)
Eric raises again the question of literal interpretation of the
Bible, and I again cannot resist the temptation to ride my
hobby-horse.
The point which is made in the message he quotes is a very good
one: if one does not accept the literal meaning of a particular
story, for example, Adam and Eve in Paradise, then what happens
to other passages or doctrines, such as Paul's understanding in
Romans of the need for salvation and the role of Jesus expressed
in an analogy between Christ and Adam?
First of all, I want to pose a couple of questions. 1) What is
literal interpretation, that is, what does it mean to say that
someone is interpreting a passage in the Bible literally? 2) Is
it the same thing to say that one does not accept the literal
meaning of a passage and to that that one thinks a passage is
untrue or without meaning. I suppose I am asking you to consider
the relationship between literal meaning and truth.
I am not attempting to be frivolous: much of the history of how
the Bible has been interpreted over the centuries revolves around
changes in understanding the concept of 'literal meaning.' The
prevalent modern concept is that literal meaning equals literal,
historical truth. That is, what most people mean when they say
that the story of Adam and Eve is true is that it is their
conviction that Adam and Eve were real historical characters like
Julius Caesar or Elizabeth I. If such a person were to deny that
something in the Bible was literally true, they would be saying
it was false and had no meaning, just as if they were to say that
the history of the reign of Elizabeth I was not literal truth.
This has not always been the case. Over the centuries, some
Christians have defined 'literal' differently than it is defined
now. Others have believed that there was more than one kind--or
perhaps it would be more accurate to say more than one level--of
truth in the Bible. Many of those who presently deny the literal
truth of the Bible affirm with equal fervour its truth at another
level or in another way. They see the Bible as expressing truth
and meaning in some passages which are not in their estimation
literally true. A good (and non-controversial) example of this
is the book of Job. There is a good deal of agreement among
Christians of quite different views on the Bible that the book of
Job is a work of fiction in the sense that Job himself, his
family, the county of Uz, and so on, never existed. It is a kind
of extended parable used by the author as a vehicle for extensive
and profound teaching about the meaning of suffering and the will
of God. No-one by denying its historical truth denies its truth
and meaning on a far more important level.
I myself as you all well know by this time don't accept the idea
of the verbal inerrancy of Scripture. Because of that, I also
cannot accept the idea that all Scripture is literally true: if
something is not free of error it cannot be literally true in its
entirety! But I do believe that all Scripture was written for
our instruction, that, because it contains in however
occasionally imperfect a form the record of God's encounter with
his people and of his plan of salvation for all humankind, we can
be instructed and edified by any part of Scripture if it is
approached with humility, prayer, and careful reading, and in the
love of God. Even though I do not myself believe that the story
of the creation and of Adam and Eve are literally true or in any
way a replacement for scientific endeavour, I believe they
express important spiritual truth, about human nature, about the
estrangement between humankind and God, about God's continued
love and involvement with the created world. To my mind, it is
that spiritual truth which Genesis 1-11 contains which gives
confirmation to the teaching of Paul about the nature of Jesus'
redemptive act and his parallel between the figure of Adam and
that of Christ.
This is getting a bit long, so I shall close here. I had
intended another posting about saints and the theology of
intercession, but that will have to wait for another day!
Yours in Christ.
AbigailD2MG@SDSUMUS (Kurt Evans) (02/05/90)
Abigail,
I haven't forgotten about those references you were *sure* you
could find (January 22)--the ones about the Church in its early days
interpreting Adam and Eve allegorically.
Kurt