Can the Bible be taken literally?

Note: I'm back after a quick/long period of celebration of our youngest son's high school graduation, the close of school-a very busy time for me, and a preaching trip to Alaska. Whew! Now, back to Keller's book, The Reason for God, which is still #30 on the New York Times Best Seller list.) You Can’t Take the Bible Literally A common criticism of Christianity is that the “Christian faith requires belief in the Bible….but today you can’t take it literally.” The usual context of this complaint is either in the realm of science (see previous chapter & post), or history—unreliable or culture—repressive. But is it so? Keller recognizes the popularity of DaVinci Code arguments but gathers good reasons to counter those claims. His first is that the timing of the New Testament documents is too early for the gospels to be legends. The first documents were written at most 40-60 years after Jesus’ death. That would mean that when they were written there were still plenty of people around who would have been eyewitnesses! Not only people who became followers of Jesus, but those who were doubters, deniers and antagonists. “For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead.” The reliability of the history can be seen when the apostle Paul said to King Agrippa, “These things were not done in a corner.” (Acts 26.26) The point is that they took place and no one doubted or argued that point. They were recognized as authoritative and eyewitness accounts early. In addition to the gospels being written too early to be manipulations into legends, Keller also points out that the content is far too counterproductive. For instance if the gospels were written to buoy up the early church, you would expect Jesus to ‘make comments’ on some of the debates affecting the early church. He never addresses the question of believers being circumscribed—which was an issue in the late 40’s AD in Galatia. In a similar manner, the apostles are not painted in the most enduring picture. They are seen as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slowwitted and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master.” This content doesn’t support any idea that the gospels were ginned up in some way to support Christianity and the early church. Finally, Keller notes that the literary form is way too detailed to be legend. Those who have studied legends and myths of that era note how devoid of detail they are. Yet the gospel accounts include things like the number of fish caught or a teacher doodling in the sand. There is a growing body of scholars who argue for the authenticity of the gospel accounts as being fromm the days of Jesus. What about the cultural questions? The two most common questions at this time seem to be the question of whether the Bible supports slavery and whether it promotes the subjugation of women. Both of these questions are important and are actually helpful in teaching us how to approach the Bible. First of all, everyone must be careful not to take their own ideas of a subject back to the text and impose it upon what is under consideration. For instance, most people today hear the word “slavery” and conclude what is being talked about is the African slave trade. But during Roman times, there wasn’t considerable difference between a slave and a freeperson. They looked alike, were not segregated from one another, made the same wages and in the case of slaves, usually could acquire enough capital to free themselves. Slavery was not normally lifelong. Completely different was the African slave trade, where people were ‘owned’ forever, dehumanized, obtained by kidnapping and trafficked for profit. The Bible condemns this kind of activity! Consider 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and Deuteronomy 24:7. Different. And the practice of such by Christians should not be condoned. But neither should a reader interpose his own understanding on such a sensitive issue back upon the text. The reality is that most of us hold unexamined cultural beliefs and practices. We usually are shocked at what our grandparents may have accepted and practiced. We rarely consider how our grandchildren will consider what we accept and practice. A good example of this would be to consider how modern British people differ from the Anglo-Saxons of a 1000 years ago. Both read of Jesus, coming with angels to judge the whole world according to righteousness (Mk 14.62). Both read of Peter, who denied his master and was later restored Mk 14:67 & 16:7) Moderns seem to shudder at judgment and delight in forgiveness. The ancestors understand judgment and are appalled at disloyalty and betrayal. How could it ever be forgiven? Cultural sensitive questions about Bible meaning are best held loosely. And also with a view as to how they match with the center of Biblical teaching—for instance the person and work of Jesus.