Should we Take the Bible Literally or Seriously?

By Matthew Claridge–

 I’m being a bit facetious with this title. I do not want to press a false dilemma, i.e., either we take the Bible seriously or we take the Bible literally; as if the two are mutually exclusive. But for the sake of argument, however, this distinction serves for a helpful point of entry into a theological controversy in the area of interpreting biblical prophecy. The parties in this controversy are deeply entrenched in their respective positions precisely because each believes they are taking the biblical highroad. Each has their own evangelical badge that gets pulled out time and again to silence their interlocutors.

For instance, dispensationalists cling tenaciously to the principle of grammatical-historical exegesis which, they believe, yields a “literal” interpretation of the prophetic future. The polemical payoff: we dispensationalists respect the original intent of the author and, as such, consistently and devoutly uphold the integrity and authority of Scripture. The Covenant theologians, on the other hand, argue that a more “firgurative” or “spiritual” interpretation of OT prophecy allows Jesus and the NT to set the hermeneutical and theological agenda. Each one, in their own way, makes a legitimate case as defenders of biblical authority; and it is precisely for this reason that neither side can easily make headway with the other.

These words from Patrick Fairbairn, a 19^th century evangelical Scotsman, offers the first salvo in breaking the stalemate:

 Bishop Butler gave expression to the sentiment, which has since been many times repeated, ‘Prophecy is nothing but the history of events before they come to pass.’ [“Analogy,” Part II, chap. 7] Of course, if it be nothing but that, it should be written like that: as the character of both is the same, there can be no reason why the style of both should not  also be substantially the same. …  [one school of thought argues] since prophecy is but history anticipated, all it reveals of the future must be taken as literally as history itself; every word must have its simple meaning attached to it—that and no more; so that the degree of fulfilment which has been given to any prophecy of Scripture, is to be ascertained and measured by the adaptation of what is written to events subsequently occurring, viewed simply in the light of a pre-historical intimation of them; whatever has not been so fulfilled must be regarded as still waiting for its accomplishment in the future. And as this view seemed to betoken a high regard for the exact  and perfect truthfulness of the prophetic record, so by pressing the literality of some of its announcements, it appeared for a time to gain in value, and to furnish new weapons for the vindication of the faith. (The Interpretation of Prophecy, [Banner of Truth, 1964 ed.], 84)

 Fairbairn locates the origin of this conflict, interestingly, in bishop Butler’s presupposed  definition of  predictive prophecy. When it is assumed at the outset that predictive prophecy is “nothing but the history of events before they come to pass,” we are bound to run into problems, not least because we are courting the fallacy of “reductionism” or “nothing-but-ism.” The significance of this point is that neither Covenant theology nor Dispensationalism gets it quite right. The “genre discourse” of Prophetic literature lays down its own internal rules for how we should read and appropriate it. Only via this textual criteria do we arrive at something very close to the priority of the NT revelation.

And this brings us to the main thesis I want to work with: Butler’s definition is not based on the inter-textual presuppositions of Scripture but actually on an extra-textual imposition placed upon Scripture. That is, the call for a strict literalism in the prophetic corpus does not take the Bible on its own terms but imports an outside, philosophical influence which sets the agenda. By contrast, the Bible is history-depicting only when and where it wants to be and nowhere else.

While Fairbairn never goes so far as to say Butler’s definition is the product of the Enlightenment, he certainly pins it on an apologetic rationale that acquiesces to Enlightenment rules of engagement.  Notice the last sentence in the block quote above. Interpreting prophecy as “history-depicting” can provide a powerful apologetic argument. In an age when older methods involving “typology” were considered positively medieval and when history as science was ascendant, the church became more and more pressed to speak in similar categories. It is in this milieu that interpreting prophecy as literally as possible seemed to offer the best middle road between evangelizing the modern world and maintaining a strong position on the authority and integrity of Scripture. Butler, we should recall, was one of the pre-eminent Christian apologists of his era.

Importantly, Fairbairn does not argue that a predictive element is completely absent from biblical prophecy. What he rejects is the rationalistic insistence that biblical prophecy is first and foremost “history-depiction.” It should not, necessarily, be the first expectation of the text. In Dispensational hermeneutics, its only when prophecy as “history-depiction” has been exhausted that the interpreter should consider symbolic, typological, or even psychological layering.  But that’s not how prophecy works a biblical genre. Thus:

 These objections, it is to be understood, are not urged against the existence of an historical element in prophecy, but only against the mode of ascertaining it—against the principle, that prophecy in its predictive character is written substantially in the style and diction of history. While we contend against its being so written, or interpreted as if such had been the case, we still strenuously maintain, that if understood in its proper nature, and interpreted in a manner agreeable to that, it will be found in many of its announcements capable of yielding clear and specific historical results.  (101)

 However, unlike the “prophecy as history-depiction” school, which places an impossible burden of proof on finding strictly literal correspondences between oracles and their fulfillments, Fairbairn argues that the apologetic force of biblical prophecy is cumulative in nature. Biblical prophecies become truly coherent and persuasive when woven into the matrix of Scripture’s own categories and history (e.g., typology).[1]  Thus, Fairbairn  argues that Scripture must be taken seriously on its own terms.  As a coherent, self-contained story we do not need to acquiesce to the rival narratives and interpretive matrices that seem to make sense to the current cultural zeitgeist. In effect, Fairbairn is simply upholding the Protestant doctrine that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Perhaps its the case after all that taking the Bible literally may not always be synonymous with taking the Bible seriously. Consider these last words from Fairbairn:

 Now, the evidence of prophecy is essentially of a connected and cumulative nature. It does not consist so much in the verifications given to a few remarkable predictions, as in the establishment of an entire series, closely related to each other, and forming a united and comprehensive whole. This is peculiarly the case in respect to the prophecies, which relate to the person and kingdom of Messiah, which more than any other form a prolonged and connected series. Hence, to use the words of Bishop Hurd, ‘though the evidence be but small from the completion of any one prophecy, taken separately, the amount of the whole evidence, resulting  from a great number of prophecies, all relative to the same design, may be considerable; like many scattered rays, which, though each be weak in itself, yet concentrated into one point, shall form a strong light, and strike the sense very powerfully.’ [“Sermons on Prophecy” p. 86] 203-4

Matthew Claridge is married to Cassandra and has three children, Alec , Nora, and Grace. He is an editor for Credo Magazine and is Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Grangeville, ID. He has earned degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.