2. Literal Language
The first rule of dealing with a Bible text is a very simple one – that we presume the words of any biblical verse or passage we read should be understood in their normal "literal" way unless we have reason to look for other, deeper levels of meaning. This means that we always read a biblical text as we would any other regular document such as a newspaper or a book about plants or music or any other topic – and that we accept the normal everyday meaning of what is said unless we see some reason that the words may have been used figuratively or symbolically.
Although this first rule may seem obvious, the centuries since the Bible was written have seen numberless cases of people misinterpreting biblical texts because they presumed there was some deeper symbolic, theological, or spiritual meaning involved in them rather than the plain meaning of what the text said.
On the other hand, accepting what the Bible says at face value does not always work either, and many people have hurt themselves or others unnecessarily by taking biblical statements literally that should not have been understood that way. We need to know when to accept a literal understanding of what we read and when to move on to other levels of meaning.
When to Take the Bible Literally Practically speaking, if we read in the Bible about a storm or a sea, about a loaf of bread or a donkey, or about anything at all, we should begin by presuming this is all that is meant. Only when that approach gives a puzzling or difficult result should we begin to look for other ways to understand the words we read. When Jesus said, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35), clearly we have to look at a symbolic meaning for this statement. But on those occasions when we are told that Jesus "broke bread" or talked about a woman baking bread, and in dozens of other similar examples, a plain, literal meaning of "bread" should be just as obvious.
We should always remember that despite all its poetry, imagery, and symbolism, the Bible contains far more simple text with "literal" significance than any other kind of meaning. People sometimes will say "You don't take the Bible literally, do you?" and a correct answer to that question could be "Yes, when it is not speaking symbolically or figuratively, I believe the Bible is speaking literally!"
But that doesn't mean we get to pick and choose what we want to accept as literal. Many non-Christians and even some who feel they are Christians attempt to do this by reading "acceptable" things literally and less appealing or more difficult statements as being figurative or symbolic. In this way, some wrongly read the Bible by not accepting events such as the virgin birth, miracles, or the resurrection of Jesus literally. It is better to presume that a biblical statement is to be understood literally if: 1. The statement does not lead to an unlikely or physically impossible conclusion where a miracle is not specifically stated. For example, the Gospel of John ends with the statement that if all the deeds Jesus performed during his earthly ministry were fully recorded, the whole world could not hold the books that would be necessary to include them (John 21:25). Clearly, statements like this are not meant to be taken literally. 2. The statement does not contradict other information we have and about which we are sure. Unless we have other information that clearly contradicts a literal interpretation of something we read in the Scriptures, we can usually presume that what we are reading is meant to be taken literally. Sometimes, the apparent contradiction can actually be explained (see our free book Scriptures in Question), and in other cases it may be clear that the statement we are reading is meant as a symbolic one (next point), but in all other cases we should presume literality.
3. The statement is not part of a clearly symbolic section of the Scripture. There are exceptions to this principle, however. Sometimes when we read prophetic sections of scripture, for example, we can create problems of understanding and interpretation by assuming that everything said is to be taken literally – or symbolically. It may be that we need to look carefully at what is said on a verse by verse or even phrase by phrase basis.
So the basic principle of presuming a literal meaning for biblical statements – unless there is indication not to do so – does not mean that we should "shut down" our thinking processes as we read or fail to be on the lookout for multiple possibilities in what is said. Understanding words literally can often still give us a range of possible meanings to consider, as we see in the following case study.
Case Study: The Meanings of "Firstborn"
The Bible does not use words only literally or symbolically – often the same words are used in both ways. Take, for example, the use of the term "firstborn." The biblical designation of "firstborn" often means the literal "one born first," but just as often it has different connotations, and knowing those meanings can help us to better understand a number of scriptures.
In ancient Israel, as in much of the ancient Near East, the firstborn son inherited his father's responsibilities as head of the family (Genesis 27), so we read in the Old Testament that he normally received a special – double – inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17). We see this fact in the stories of the patriarchs, where we also see that being the "firstborn" was a privilege that could sometimes actually be bestowed on a younger son who was not the literal firstborn at all. When we read the stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, we see that "firstborn" privilege was frequently not based on literal birth order, but on selection.
But whether literally firstborn or chosen as such, the holder of the firstborn birthright held a special place in biblical society. After the Passover slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the Exodus from Egypt, every firstborn Israelite male was dedicated to God's service. This obligation was later transferred to the Levites (Numbers 8:1419), but the significance of the special relationship between God and the firstborn continued, as we see in the fact that the nation of Israel as a whole was called God's firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23; Jeremiah 31:9; etc.). This fact signified Israel's special standing among the nations and also the priestly responsibility of Israel to be a "light" to the Gentile nations around them.
Thus, when Jesus Christ is called the "firstborn" in the New Testament, the word can mean several things. The term applies both to his literal position as firstborn of God: "when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him" (Hebrews 1:6); firstborn from the dead: "the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead" (Colossians 1:18); and the One who is supreme: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15).
We see, too, how these meanings flow over into the New Testament's description of Christians as being "firstborn." Our relationship with Christ and our identification with him means that we too have become firstborn, like the nation of physical Israel, but even more so: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" (Romans 8:29). That is why the book of Hebrews refers to Christians as "the church of the firstborn" (Hebrews 12:23).
So, the term "firstborn" in the Scriptures can mean much more than simply "the one born first." It may mean that, but it may also mean the one to whom the birthright responsibility was given.
In our own study we can navigate these different meanings by simply presuming a term is used literally unless that does not fit what is being said. At that point we can move on to figures of speech and other metaphorical and symbolic levels of meaning.