There are three areas I wanted to write about in this second part:
(1) Which scriptures are “non-negotiable”?
(2) Which scriptures may not be literal?
(3) How should one deal with literalism in general?
(1) Scriptures like the story of creation when it comes to God being the creator, his provision for freedom from slavery as the primary theme in the old testament, the accompanying nature of sin and the need for redemption away from judgment, and the Sermon on the Mount as guide for behavior are part of the “Great Narrative.” If someone is saying that there is no God, that is one thing. But if that Christ did not exist, then the critic has to tend with 2000 years of tradition that until now has been accepted. (Lewis’s lunatic, liar, lord is augmented by “legend” today.) The Quellenforschung critic can point out the helpful backstory, but the meaning of Christ’s grand story cannot be a casualty.
(2) There are some scriptures that may not be literal. In paraphrase:
“It’s easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.”
This was actually made clear by the Lord when the apostles ask, “but who then can be saved?” And he said “With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The scripture then appears to be hyperbole.
“I suppose all the books in the world could not contain all that He said.”
This could not be literal; the words of Christ throughout his three-year ministry could not exceed all the books in the world, i.e., it seems to be a case of hyperbole, while acknowledging his all-too-apparent omniscience.
“Your descendants will be more numerous than the sands of the sea.”
If this is intended to be literal, then it refers to Abraham’s offspring — grafted in or not — growing throughout eternity. But it would still be hyperbole if we are not talking about eternity.
(3) If we set aside artistic or stylistic hyperbole, there are some other significant challenges to literalism. One that has concerned me of late is the realization the Quirinius was not the governor of Syria when the Augustan census was supposed to have taken place, nor that Augustus conducted an empire-wide census during that period. There is also no extra-biblical reference to Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents, which would surely be documented in some way? While I pray that new sources would be revealed to evince the historical background, I must say there are some sort of errors here.
There is a fear acknowledging the fact that the copyists were dealing with material that may not be perfect. I think some are:
(a) Afraid to deny the whole truth of the Bible, which goes to denying the creator.
(b) Afraid that non-literalism will lead to denying of certain types of sin, e.g., that sins such as abortion and homosexuality are only immoral in the time they were written about.
How does one separate the doctrinal from the historical? That is the challenge that writers like N.T. Wright attempt to bridge. Again, the historical is efficacious, but not necessary to understand the Great Narrative meaning.
One has to rightly discern the word of truth. But no one has to fret. The word of God is not under threat from the new historicist critique. Do not fear. God is not mocked.
Sin is sin. There is no division in understanding.
But what about the remonstrance that women not wear men’s clothing and for men to wear theirs, or that women not teach in the church? Are these any kind of proof that scripture is made just for its time? Important here is the idea of separating the literal first century and its enactment. This is not an easy distinction.
I could throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. But Paul’s idea of a natural order proceeds from a Genesis introduction to spiritual hierarchies. The scripture about a woman’s modesty in hair covering just shows a predefined order of male-female creation. The realization of these statements goes beyond the written Word about hair coverings. I would here note that the predefined order, a distinction between male and female (a point of contention today in our compromised identities), supersedes the historical.
So the N.T. Wrights of the world can inform us. Sometimes history can appear to threaten. But I think the challenge to our faith can strengthen. They actually strengthen our belief in the transcendent behind the historical. Their thousands of pages inform our biblical history, so let them be enlightening of the background. Don’t compromise your desire for literalism. But let the scriptures be faith-building, conquer your doubt and continue to challenge yourself. Be the servants who continue to knock at the door. You should show yourself faithful.
Struggle, as we all must. Do not be discouraged, but work out your salvation every day. It’s tiring since there is no immediate rest. The absolute answer is that you keep going.