Associated Baptist Press - Opinion: A pop quiz for biblical literalists

Opinion: A pop quiz for biblical literalists

By Miguel De La Torre

Thursday, May 07, 2009

(ABP) -- No one reads or interprets the Bible literally -- regardless as to what they profess. To do so is simplistic, if not dangerous. All of us read our bias, our theology, and our social location into the text. There is no such thing as an objective reading; all readings are subjective.

There is, however, the power for some to make their subjective reading objective. Those with the power to shape reality can impose their reading of Scripture -- a reading that justifies their privilege and lifestyle -- upon everyone else. For the marginalized to accept the predominant Eurocentric reading of Scripture, whether slaves of old or the disenfranchised of today, is to participate in their own self-policing.

Although the mythology of taking the Bible literally must be sustained so as to maintain a privileged social location, I will wager that those who insist on objective literalism have never bothered to live their lives according to such a literal, exhaustive reading. If they did, they would live illegal -- if not immoral lives. To prove my point, I prepared a pop quiz:

1. The biblical definition of a traditional marriage is one between a man and: a) many wives or concubines, b) sex slaves, c) prostitutes, d) his harem, e) all of the above.

2. Homosexuals are to be: a) tolerated, b) encouraged, c) killed, d) banned.

3. Women are saved: a) through baptism, b) by reciting a sinner’s prayer, c) through child-bearing, d) accepting Jesus, who died for their sins, as Lord as Savior.

4. God tries to kill Moses, but does not because God is appeased by Moses’ wife Zipporah, who: a) cuts off the foreskin of her son’s penis and rubs it on Moses’ penis, b) offers up a bull as sacrifice, c) takes a vow of silence, d) prays for forgiveness.

5. Evil and evil spirits come from: a) God, b) Satan, c) neither a nor b, d) both a and b.

6. Every year, one must take a tithe of all the land has yielded and: a) give it to the priests, b) give it to the church, c) give it to the poor, d) convert it to cash to buy wine, strong drink, or anything else their heart desires.

7. The Bible makes provisions for offering a sacrifice to: a) nature, b) the demonic god named Azazel, c) God, d) a and d, e) b and c.

8. To call somebody a “dog” during biblical times was: a) a term of endearment meaning “my little one,” b) an epithet of contempt, c) slang for “favorite one,” d) a term meaning “young puppy.”

9. My response to taking this test will be: a) stick my fingers in my ears and loudly sing “na na na na na,” b) question De La Torre’s salvation again while again stating never to read such commentary in ABP, c) ignore these parts of the Bible so I can maintain my literalism, d) read the text for what it says and struggle with it in the humility of knowing that a clear answer may not be evident in this lifetime.

Answers:

1. e -- I Kings 11:3, Deut. 21:10-14, Gen. 38:15, Lev. 18:18; 2. c -- Lev. 20:13; 3. c -- I Tim. 2:14-15; 4. a -- Ex. 4:24-26; 5. d -- I Sam. 18:10, I Kings 14:10, Amos 3:6, Is. 45:7; 6. d -- Deut. 14:22-27; 7. e -- Lev. 16: 8, 10, 26; 8. Prov. 26:11, I Sam. 17:43, I Sam. 24:14, II Sam. 3:8, II Sam. 9:8, II Sam 16:9; II Kings 8:13; 2 Is. 56:10-11, Matt. 15:26; 9. the choice is yours.

Score: If you got more than half wrong, how can you take literally that which you do not know?

When Moses cured the Israelites by placing a bronze serpent on a stick, it wasn’t long before the people started worshiping the serpent on the stick rather than God (Num. 21:4-9; II Kings 18:4). We humans have a tendency to fall into idolatry quickly. Idolatry is always wrong, even when worshiping objects that point to God. Many worship the Bible, rather than the one to whom the Bible points.

The Bible is not the fullest revelation of God; Jesus as the Word taking on flesh is the fullest revelation of God.

Only God should be worshiped, not the book that reveals God. In spite of some minor contradictions and several immoral regulations or commands that appear in the Bible (as the pop quiz demonstrated for those who have eyes to see), it still remains the testimony of those who saw God move in their lives and in history. And, like all testimonies, it is subjective. As important as the Bible is in my life, to worship it and give it equal standing with the Creator would be blasphemous on my part.

Some would hold on to a childish faith that says the Bible must be fully accepted or wholly rejected as untrustworthy if an error is found. Well, I pointed to several questionable or even clearly erroneous passages -- yet, even after compiling the above “pop quiz,” I hold the Bible to be trustworthy for my life and faith. Why? Because as Paul reminds us, we must but away childish things and progress from milk to solid food (I Cor. 3:1-3).

This is what it means to worship the Lord your God with all of our minds!

-30-

-- Miguel De La Torre is associate professor of social ethics at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

What's this?

Comments (19) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Deconstructing straw men
written by paidagogos, May 08, 2009

Miguel De La Torre has deconstructed a neat little straw man His piece is cute and crafty, nothing more. It is completely void of intellectual merit. He has extrapolated the literalist hermaneutic to the absurd, which is neither fair nor representative of the literalist viewpoint. A literalist interpretation of Scripture is simply the normal or common understanding of the intended meaning as opposed to a hidden, allegorical, or mystical meaning. In other words, literalist interpretation is accepting the common sense or ordinary understanding of Scripture as the intended meaning. It does allow for differences in application, circumstances, types of literature, etc. Miguel De La Torre wins no points in this match with a straw man because he never engages the real literalist viewpoint.

Seems literal enough to me
written by Greg Garrett, May 08, 2009

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

If I take the simplest, most common meaning of this passage from Leviticus, I don't see what else I can possibly think other than that I'm supposed to hit the streets and start putting gay people to death--or voting for people who will.

I agree with Prof. de la Torre, and with Scot McKnight, who says just this in his new book The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Zondervan, 2008): We all have our literalist streaks and culturalist excuses. Now our challenge is to understand this and to try to read the Bible in the way closest to that of our truest revelation of God, Jesus Christ.

Ignores Logic
written by jbiddle88, May 08, 2009

You have violated fundamental laws of interpretation: cultural, historical, and literary context. You have tried to shove OT commands into the New Covenant context, completely forgetting the effect of Jesus' life and death on the Old Covenant. You have also failed to distinguish between the moral and civil law of God.
You are proof-texting for an erroneous and eternally dangerous view of Scripture, yanking verses out of their intended context to prove your point. Because the Bible has errors to you, your own understanding and view of Scripture is now the standard of truth. You have relegated truth to your personal idea of the incarnation. You cannot stand for long with this view. It will only be God's grace that keeps you from following this view to its logical end.
In fact your whole argument is turned on its head by your thesis: "All of us read our bias, our theology, and our social location into the text. There is no such thing as an objective reading; all readings are subjective." And then you go on to read your theology of errancy, your bias toward your personal system of ethics, and your social location of acceptance into the text. In attempting to provide an objective critique of literalism, you are inherently subjective. Your whole argument falls in on itself.
I pray that God would open your blind eyes, which either your own pride or the god of this world has blinded, that you might see the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Jesus.

wow
written by Dr. J, May 10, 2009

This author is way out there. I found this article and others by this guy a waste.

No One Reads Miguel Literally
written by peterlumpkins, May 11, 2009

Miguel

I think this post is terrific. It shows the CR spot on in its initial passion, and my climbing aboard its boat first sailed in 1979. It also shows why scholars with presuppositions such as yourself chose to ride another ferry.

And, as jbiddle88 mentioned above, in your attempt to goad the literalistic principle with your 'stellar' logic, you ended poking your own self in the eye, and did so in your very first line: "No one reads or interprets the Bible literally -- regardless as to what they profess. To do so is simplistic, if not dangerous."

Nonetheless, you commence to take the Bible literally. For example, you write "Idolatry is always wrong, even when worshiping objects that point to God." But how can this be so unless you take the commands against idolatry literally? Again, "Jesus as the Word taking on flesh is the fullest revelation of God." Ah, ah ahh. Jesus cannot be "the Word taking on flesh" unless, of course, you take John 1 literally.

In addition, you assert (subjectively or objectively I cannot tell) "Only God should be worshiped, not the book that reveals God." Wait just a doggone minute, Miguel. Unless you assume what you're attempting to disprove--you know, "the simplistic, if not dangerous" interpretative principle of literalism--how is it we should embrace monotheism?

Yes, siree. Just think, I could have been drifting out on the open sea with some of you other guys, experiencing freedom from an objective but illusionary anchor had I sailed on your boat.

I know, I know. It's a 'childish faith' I pursue, seeking 'childish things.' Furthermore, I realize I'm drinking milk and not progressing toward the 'solid food' you're offering. In the end, though, know I'm subjectively content in my 'simplistic but dangerous' interpretation of the Bible.

Grace, Miguel. I wish your students the best on the 'pop quiz.'

With that, I am...
Peter

...
written by tj282828, May 11, 2009

I am more than happy to play your game, but understand that as you undermine the Bible your ability to claim true knowledge is also undermined. If the Bible is not perfect with no mistakes, then who is to judge which passages are right? You, me, and everyone else will simply choose the texts they like and therefore do what is right in their own eyes. This is not faith in God, but faith in ones own mind. Truth comes from God, not the human mind. You have made your thoughts an idol, and men like you have been common in church history. The orthodox call such men heretics. You, my friend, are a heretic. Your soul is in danger of hell.

I have no joy in saying such words, but you need to know where the Bible says you stand. Your beliefs prevent you from repentance because you have no standard to repent and place your faith in (besides what your own mind calls truth). You have undermined God's standard and have crafted your own. You will be caught in your own craftiness on judgment day if you do not repent and place your faith in the God of the Bible. Now. . . to your questions.

1. marriage: The ideal set forth in the beginning of Genesis is one man and one woman. This was perfect and God called it good. Just as the Bible gives instructions for divorce, so the Bible gives instructions for other marriage arrangements. Christ said Moses gave instruction for divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. God knew men would have practices that were not perfect, and he gave standards to follow when man missed the mark. The Bible does not support polygamy, but gives instructions for men to follow when they adopt the lesser practice. I hope you can see the parallels between divorce and polygamy.

2. Homosexuality- As you know, the state is to carry the sword (Rom. 13:3-5). Christians are not to kill anyone, but the state may use the sword, an instrument of death, to impose the death penalty. Should the state have the death penalty for homosexuality? First let us take a closer look at the situation. Homosexuality spreads deceases (HIV & others) that kill thousands every year. Other STDs hinder pregnancy. Sexual sin is very serious. Without the proper use of sex, the next generation is not born and/or raised correctly (with a mother and father). See Europe and how they will soon be Muslim because traditional families are not making enough babies to sustain the culture. In a matter of 75 short years, Europe will commit sexual societal suicide. Being that in the U.S. thousands are dying because of homosexual disease, and Western Culture is killing itself by not adopting God's plan for family, we can see serious consequences for sexual sin. This justifies the harsh punishments for sexual sin in the Bible (Israel had to be sustained as a nation so that God's promise of the Messiah would be born). By the way, homosexuals have far more partners in their lifetimes than heterosexuals. Thus the extra disease. Gays live an average of 20 years less than heterosexuals (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html). What would happen if the death penalty were imposed for homosexuals? Iran does this and puts very few homosexuals to death. Yet their HIV rate is much less and actually, when one thinks about it, saves lives. The few who die for homosexuality protect the society at large from HIV and other disease. If the goal is to save lives, then it seems like the OT command accomplishes this. This logic will be hated, but facts are facts.

3. Women saved: Spiritually everyone is saved by Christ. There is no doubt about this (Gal. 3:28-29). Yet the Bible does not always make a distinction between salvation and righteous living. Only those who persevere to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13). To persevere means to live a righteous life by the grace of God. For a woman, this means making a home. This does not mean that women who cannot have children are not saved. The text is simply speaking about what most righteous women will experience: marriage, children, and making a home. I should not have to point to the many, many text that support this type of life for women. Yes, I know women have not done this since the revolution of the 60s, but look at what happens to society when no one claims the calling of raising the next generation.

4. Circumcision: God demands obedience. Can you imagine what would have happened if Moses, the leader of the people, had not circumcised his own son? Circumcision is part of God's covenant with OT Israel. God demands obedience.

...
written by tj282828, May 11, 2009

5. God sends trouble to the wicked: Why is the a problem? God used wicked Babylon to destroy Israel, and He even uses demons to inflict punishment. The righteous need not fear God sending judgment, but the wicked should indeed fear Him. Demons love to destroy human lives, and if God removes His protection do you believe they will abstain in their tortures? No, they will curse a man's soul because there is not divine power to protect it.

6. This is not even serious. The money is to be spent on what is needed for sacrifice and worship of God. As you know from Leviticus many different offerings were available for worship. With in this framework people were able to choose how to worship.

7. Azazel- Azazel, the meaning is sketchy at best. We know very little about this word from the time of Moses. Let us assume that Azazel is the devil for arguments sake. The sin has been symbolically placed on the escape goat. That goat is sent out to the demonic wasteland. So, sin goes where is belongs: with the demons away from the holy, purified people of God. This is not an offering to the demonic, but sending the representative of sin, the goat, where it belongs. . . with Satan.

8. Use of the term dog in scripture- A dog is a scavenger that takes what is not theirs. Jesus calls the woman a dog because she is a Gentile that does not worship God but wants a healing. Jesus refuses, His power is for the saved and those pondering salvation. Once the woman shows faith, Jesus draws her to salvation with a miracle.

I find it interesting you did not give an answer to question 8. It is as if you are still trying to vindicate yourself from the last article you wrote. You have failed, and dug a deeper hole for yourself. The advantage for you in this is now your heresy is not in doubt at all. Even the moderates are uneasy with you. Now is the time to repent and be saved by a holy God. Your soul is in danger. I sincerely pray for you.

Get Real!
written by Mark Osgatharp, May 11, 2009

How stupid do you think people are? Do you really think your "disclaimer" will make anyone think that you have any motive other than an agenda to push your modernist theological agenda? Do you think God will excuse you in that day for promoting this filth because you put a disclaimer on it? LOL! What a hoot!

P.S.
written by Mark Osgatharp, May 11, 2009

Your disclaimer says, "credible and compelling information about matters of faith." LOL! This is nothing but warmed over and empty infidel rhetoric which could have come right out of a 19th century "Free Thinkers" publication. The only thing it compels is disgust on the part of decent Christian people.

I admit I am weak
written by robber, May 13, 2009

OK, I admit that I can't stay away from the ABP opinion pages. Like a train wreck, I just have to watch, no matter how gruesome the scene will be. So it is with DLT. It's quickly moving from disturbing to hilarious with this guy. The more insane stuff he writes, the more people call him out; and the more he is infuriated the more articles he writes. I admit it: I'm entertained. I'm no better than anyone else, passing by the train wreck with my eyes focused on the crumpled mass of humanity known as DLT. You have to admit, folks, this is fun. DLT is the funniest joke since two priests and a donkey walked into a bar.

Seriously, DLT, since I know you like to read the responses to your articles: You're engaging in a dangerous practice. You're arguing with your audience. Just keep writing your manure and let us throw it at each other. It's more fun that way. Stay out of our batter's box. We're the hitters, you're the guy that throws the ball down the middle for us to smack line drives all over the park. Don't sit down with us to eat, just keep bringing us the dinner rolls. Are any of these analogies getting through to you? Probably not, now that I think about it.

The only thing funnier than DLT is ABP's disclaimer, as Mark described so well. They can't possibly think we're buying this, can they? Nooo, that's not possible. But that's OK, it adds to the entertainment value. DLT and ABP, keep firing away. I'll be here to watch what happens, I can't help myself. But trust me, I'll go somewhere else for real Biblical discussion.

1 Corinthians 8:1-2
written by tmarsh0307, May 14, 2009

Dear Miguel,

I am a ThM graduate from Duke in New Testament. I also consider myself a "moderate," whatever that may mean. I share this to say that you have offended me, even though I do not suscribe to the hermeneutics you attempt to belittle.

What is the purpose of your editorial?

I mean, what is your purpose in teaching at a school of theology? I know Iliff's reputation. Is your purpose to train people to grow in their faith, or to rip it apart? Do you love your readers? Do you really care about them?

Because what I see in your writing is immaturity.

Knowledge creates arrogance, but love builds community.

I am thankful that I studied under professors at Duke that actually cared about their students, and about the audience of those who read their work. And, they are in the class of the "best" in their fields. Faith and knowledge work hand in hand.

This 'liberal' mind-set of professors who seek to belittle their students and audience, to respond condescendinly to them, disgusts me. ABP would be wise to refrain from publishing you again. It is not this article, but others as well.

Maybe so-called biblical literalists are not the only ones who need to grow up.

to tmarsh0307
written by robber, May 14, 2009

"What is the purpose of your editorial?"

Do you have any children? Do you remember the first time your son or daughter made a big mess in his/her diaper, and it really smelled? Remember how horrified you were? Remember turning to your child and seeing the look of glee in his/her eyes? That's what's happening here. You're offended by the smell, and like a baby, DLT could not be more satisfied with himself.

To Robber
written by tmarsh0307, May 14, 2009

Good analogy. I know that experience, all too well.

...
written by Bluecat, May 19, 2009

The comments here show exactly what this author is talking about... Look a little deeper than the words to find the truth. On the surface this article is a rather silly way to show that the Bible cannot be taken literally. He could also have mentioned the genocides ordered by God that spatter the old testament with innocent blood of children and women, but that is not the point of the article. In order to understand the truth of the Christ, you have to read the words of the Bible in a deep way, and dig out the jewels from the dross. The bible is written by people, some of them with deep deep problems, but there is truth there. The Truth of love for all of the creation around us; The truth that good will win regardless of how strong and attractive evil looks...surely that is what the cross says; The courage that gives us to always do good to others, regardless of how evilly they treat us...these are the truths that you find in the Bible. And these are found by meditation, by prayer, by understanding the deep meaning of what it means to be a Christian, not by waving a book around and saying that it is the word of God.

Baloney
written by Mark Osgatharp, May 19, 2009

Bluecat, When you reject the evident intending meaning of the authors of the Scriptures you have ceased being a believer in the Scriptures and become nothing more than a literary critic. For example, you dismiss the genocide which was frequently commanded by God in the Scriptures and which plays a large part in Scriptural theology. Your approach to the Scriptures, then, becomes one of unbelief and not belief. Your comments prove what Bible believers have always known - modernism it not Christianity - it is anti-Christianity.

If believing in Genocides is the mark of a Christian, then I'm proud not to be one
written by Bluecat, May 20, 2009

Mark,

Peace be with you. I hope your God gives you what you need. That God is not one I can worship, and I would be in the front line of defending those who his followers would murder. I hope we never meet in those circumstances.

The Christ that I know would weep at your words, and would be mortified that they are uttered in his name.

Again peace be with you, and I don't think I can say anything else.

Our Rock is not as your rock
written by Mark Osgatharp, May 20, 2009

Bluecat, The "christ" you worship is not the Christ of God nor of the Scriptures. He is a god of your own imagination The Christ who delivered the Scriptures to mankind is, in fact, waging genocide on the whole human race, sparing only those who believe on Him and the sacrifice He made for sins on the cross. The Christ that I know is not mortified by anything - He is outraged that men such as yourself turn His grace into lasciviousness, and will deal with you accordingly. As He stated in the letter dictated to His servant John and delivered by His angel to His church at Thyatira: "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

thanks
written by billmyatt, May 20, 2009

thanks for including this opinion article, abp. dr. de la torre's humorous rhetoric provides a healthy perspective on the way that religious words like "literalist" or "true" or even "God" or "Jesus Christ" can function as trump cards. they are dangerous particularly because of their inherent strength. wittingly or not, purposefully or not, those who use them do so in an attempt to keep power in their own hands, and it is good to have that power checked through voices of the marginalized.

dlt is right to point out the necessary interpretive moves we all make in reading scripture. in augustinian terms, he is trying to keep us from enjoying the tools, when we should just be using them. great work, and please keep these opinions coming.

Typical liberal straw men.
written by Ken, May 21, 2009

Isn't De La Torre the same guy who said Jesus was a racist?

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

Write comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register

< Prev		Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion