What is Literalism?

 

Of course, I am applying this short discussion to the Bible, and it actually began early in my life. I was simply taught to appreciate and evaluate original sources, long before I became a Christian. I was taught to go back to original sources. In our days and times, people frequently misquoted the older writers, sometimes deliberately, sometimes through misunderstanding. The recommended recourse? Go back to the original and see for yourself what the writer was saying.

That attitude I brought to Christianity. Clear others away and see what the Bible actually says. Many in our society today are not aware of just how reliable our ancient manuscripts are. I came across this yesterday in my reading from Lee Strobel. “. . . that there are between 200,000 and 400,000 variants, or differences, between the copies that we have. So the implication is clear: How can we trust the Bible if it’s pockmarked with errors?”¹ Strobel goes on to answer his question, “First, the more copies you have of any document, the more variations you’ll have. So, for example, if you only have a handful of manuscript copies—as in the case of most ancient literature—then there won’t be very many differences either.” ²Strobel further explains that we have thousands of copies of the Bible. “So the high number of variants is actually a by-product of the overwhelming quantity of copies that we have—and is a mark of strength.” ³

So, someone could (and did) misquote the texts of Scripture by implying that the manuscripts were riddled with errors. In fact, there are no ancient manuscripts with more errors, but instead of having less than a dozen or so manuscripts, we have thousands. Of course, the error rate goes up, but the errors are mostly misspellings and other trivial things. We do have wonderfully reliable manuscripts to purview today.

If God took so much care to preserve the texts for us today, we ought to take special care in seeing what they actually say. And that is where literalism comes in. What I try so hard to teach is called the historical/grammatical method of interpretation, commonly called the literal method. Essentially the idea is that what God says is what God means. The difficulty is in seeing what God says. All of that is interpretation. Anything that follows after interpretation should be called application.

Application of what is said in the Bible should always follow interpretation. When I approach any text in the Bible, I ask the following questions to understand the context: Who is speaking? Who is he speaking to? In what circumstances do they find themselves? Is there anything about the setting that might give more meaning to what they are saying?

That is why when I look at John 15, where Jesus talks about the vine and the branches, I look to understand the context. Some Christians seem to approach the chapter without checking context, but the context is everything. It is not like Jesus drops everything that is happening on his second-to-last night before crucifixion. He is down to hours, perhaps even less time, and he knows he has to get the message out. He is not teaching about the abiding doctrines that are the church; he finds himself with two parties of Israelites. He is teaching about the abiding Israelites, and telling of those Israelites who are not abiding. Those who do not remain in him, namely Judas and the priests, will be burnt up, just as the worthless branches are burnt up. Further, he lets the disciples know that those who he loves are subject to pruning. Namely, Peter will be severely pruned shortly, and yet in the end will bear more fruit as a result of the pruning. Also, the disciples themselves, after telling Jesus that will never desert or forsake him, will find themselves running away and hiding. For three days they will be lost and hopeless and beyond repair. Then the husbandman will come in and prune the disciples, making them all ready to bear more fruit. Missing the context can lead to awful interpretation, including thinking that Christians lose their salvation.

Literalism is the only answer. What is God saying? To whom is he saying it? The Protestant church prides itself on being literal; perhaps it is time to look at a few passages and see whether we are doing the job of living up to our literal goals. I remain surprised at the sharp contention I encounter in teaching literalism. Some errantly think I am trying to compromise the Christian message. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am trying to do is to get us to look at exactly what is being said. One of my favorite verses is in Timothy where Paul reminds Timothy that all Scripture is given for doctrine and reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that we might be complete, thoroughly furnished with all good works. Shouldn’t we first be concerned with what is actually being said? Surely we can pursue completeness and righteousness.

1.         Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christianity Answer Book (Answer Book Series) (p. 87). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

2.         Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christianity Answer Book (Answer Book Series) (p. 88). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.  

3.         Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christianity Answer Book (Answer Book Series) (p. 88). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.