Take the Long Way Home

The other day I was involved in a conversation about what is the best way to interpret Scripture. There are several theories, not all of which were discussed, but the main question was are the Scriptures meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? The answers usually vary, with the “fundamentalists” saying that Scripture should always be taken literally, and the “liberals” saying it should be taken as metaphor. In actuality most people fall somewhere in the middle of these two ideals.

This started me thinking - I’m full of opinions on this subject, as are most folks. But what does this mean for me personally when I read Scripture? Do I have to study ancient near eastern literature to better understand the form of the Old Testament? Do I have to be a Rabbinical scholar, or at least be familiar with how the Jews traditionally understood the Old Testament? What about the New? Do I need to spend some time figuring out textural criticism, so I can best decide which of the dozens of translations is the best? Does it matter that not every word is the same in the different texts? Did God give us a record that only the few can truly understand? I don’t think so. Although I see great value in all those areas I mentioned, and I’m glad that there are people out there doing all those things, so I can read their work and make some decisions for myself, but ultimately I think that the ancient church had the right idea. Assume that what is read is literal (at least in some sense), but that’s not all there is to it, there is a richer, deeper meaning there as well.

The ancient church Fathers referred to this as the different senses of Scripture. We can see a pretty good summary of their thoughts in the catechism (I am only including a very small section to discuss here, there is more before and after this section that I recommend looking at).

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”⁸³

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.⁸⁵

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.⁸⁷

They suggested that all Scripture has all four of these dimensions. It’s not always a question of which is it, physical or metaphorical, but what does God want me to learn through this account. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. I’m not suggesting that this answers all questions, nothing ever does.

All of this was in my mind during Mass on Sunday when the Gospel was read. If you’re not familiar with John chapter 9, then go on and read it! It’s about the man being born blind who was healed by Jesus. Pastors must love it when this reading comes around. Talk about a rich passage. You could preach a hundred sermons on this story and not repeat yourself once, there’s that many lessons in this one story!

But this is what jumped out at me about the reading: it’s the perfect illustration of the two types of interp - literal and metaphorical. I don’t even have to think about it because both senses are pointed out for us by Jesus himself in the story! So, now nobody can accuse me of overthinking the passage, right? Here’s how it plays out: Jesus physically and literally gives a blind man his sight. But Jesus uses the healing to point out how spiritually blind the Pharisees are. The blind man is given both kinds of sight - literal and metaphorical. He can literally see Jesus standing in front of him, but he can also “see” who Jesus really is - the Son of God. He has been given physical and spiritual sight. Both senses of Scripture right there in print for us. Not one interpretation or another, it’s both at the same time!

I honestly believe that this is how we should look at most Scriptures. They are not a riddle to be unlocked, they are not merely a literal rendition of history, they are not a metaphorical idea book. Scripture, the written word of God, is the revelation of Jesus, the living Word of God. We can see this on several levels, all of which are valid, and all of which depend on each other. It’s not a question of literal OR metaphorical, but literal AND metaphorical.

This is a very interesting book!  Even though I know, intellectually, that the Bible wasn’t written all at the same time, and that early Jews and Christians had to decide which books were “inspired” and which were not and that there was early Jewish commentary - I never thought about what it means - how it affects interpretation.  Whose interpretation is correct?  Jewish or Christian?  When was each book written and why?

The Bible is basically written down oral tradition.  I “know” this, but I have always glossed over this in my mind.  When Moses wrote the Torah (and how do we even know that Moses wrote it except for tradition?) was he writing down the stories that his mother had told him as a little boy?  Was it the stories that his father in law told him in the years he lived there?  I was always told that Moses wrote these down so that the second generation of Isrealites (the first generation who left Egypt had died in the wilderness) who hadn’t witnessed the miracles of God’s deliverance would have a record to look back on and “know” what God had done for them.  But what about Genesis?  Did he have a vision and God revealed to him exactly what happened?  Or did God preserve this history by word of mouth?  Or were they stories (like George Washington and the cherry tree) not based in actual history, but moral stories to make a point about who God was and what he had done?

Pelikan talks about  how translation from Hebrew to Greek changed the text.  That what choices translators make show their biases.  there are not always equal words in different languages, so in translation meaning can be changed.  This is so scary to me.  I must rely on men I don’t know to translate a book I consider holy!

I remember the first time someone told me (an English Professor) that the Bible wasn’t canonized until the 4th century and some of the books included were highly disputed.  Barely made the cut, as she put it.  I was stunned, shocked, speechless.  I had never thought about where the Bible came from or that “people” had to choose from many books which ones were Scripture.  I had this idea (not a formed idea, just a vague seed of an idea) that God had put it together.  I knew it didn’t drop from the sky finished, but that was how I treated it.  I wanted to argue with her, but knew I had not a leg to stand on.  “What do you mean, barely made the cut?  What do you mean not all churches at the time used the same books?”  I never thought about the fact that the last book wasn’t written until 70 years after Christ’s death.  What did the first churches do without John or Rev. for 70 years?  What about the churches who were very far away from hubs like Rome or Jerusalem, or Antioch?  Did they even have copies of any of the books?  And what about before any of them were written?  There was about 10 -20 years when there were NO letters from Paul or James, etc.  And now that I am thinking about this, what does it mean?  How does this affect what I believe?

With Pelikan’s evidence I’m forced to rethink my view of Scripture.  Maybe it’s not a “magic” book, where every word is inerrant.  Maybe it has to be looked at more loosely - a collection of thoughts and practices on God that have been amplified by the “community of believers”.

What is most “d*mning is the New Testament authors making interpretations of the Old Testament based on the Septuigent, that end up reading differently in the Hebrew original.  This makes me want to question “inspiration” or at least my definition of inspiration!  Maybe it doesn’t mean that every word is sacred, but that God uses the whole to reveal himself.

Question:  Did God create a text to define the Church or create a church out of which flowed a text?

“Canonization is the search for texts perfect in their role in accounting for how God has come into history.”

“How a text is accepted/rejected in the canon…

1) Do those who experience the life of God in the world through teh right worship of God in Christ find in this text a true account of their experience/history?  Does the text resonate with the community of those who worship rightly?

2) Is the text agreed upon by a consensus of authorities in the apostolic line of descent?  (all in italics were the words of someone in a forum that I frequent)

According to Pelikan, at the Reformation, the Bible became a “doctrine in it’s own right.  Inspiration was defined as the mysterious process by which the Holy Spirit interacted with the personalities of the Biblical writers.  On this basis the religious authority of the Bible was taken to imply also it’s inerrancy, not only in questions of faith and morals but in every historical, geographical, and scientific detail that is mentioned in it’s pages.”  I must personally take issue with Pelikan here, because I see instances where this (all but the first sentence) took place before the Reformation. 

Now many groups claimed their interpretations were right based on Scripture alone rather than how they worshipped or organized or wanted Christians to live.  Before the Reformation, Scripture had never been “alone”.  In the Judaic tradition there were commentaries to go along with and interpret the Tanakh (Old Testament), then the early Christians had Jesus’ words to interpret the Tanakh.  Then the church developed it’s creeds and liturgy.  The church chose which books were “Scripture” according to how they fit with tradition.  These New Testament Scriptures were used to interpret the Old Testament.

I have intentionally kept myself isolated from works of this nature.  I have walled myself in with only Calvinistic, Reformed, Presbyterian works so that I don’t have to think about what I believe.  I can define it , using the words of another, but I don’t really have tomake any choice.  I decided that *thi*s is the way to believe and I have only read those who defend and support *this* view.  Now that I have allowed other voices in I feel like a schitzophrenic with competing voices in my head.  I am having to redefine what I believe.

At the end of the book, Pelikan moves to a description of the “reality” of Scripture that I love…

      It has always possessed that power [to speak to the reader] and those whom it strikes have always been at a loss about how to cope with it…the beauty of the language of the Bible can be like a set of dentists instruments neatly laid out on a table…until they set to work on the job for which they were intended.  Then my reaction changes from “how shiny and beautiful they are” to “get that d*mned thing out of my mouth!”  Once I read it anew, it stops speaking in cliches and begins to address me directly.