Where's the line in metaphorical Bible interpretation?

[quixotic78]

When I was in undergrad, I was a member of a student-led Christian Bible study group. At one of these meetings, I asked, “If Christ says in the New Testament that He isn’t going to change the [Judaic] Law, then why aren’t Christians keeping Kosher?” The answer I got was that we no longer have to. Kosher rules were designed to keep people wandering in the desert without refrigeration from getting trichinosis from eating spoiled pig. Kosher rules are actually God’s way of keeping the ancient Israelites healthy. Now that we have refrigeration, eating pig isn’t as dangerous as it used to be. [Why we eat shellfish, what with the red tide and all, wasn’t explained].

So, basically, this group (and I’m sure it’s not a position unique to them) said that we don’t have to take the Bible at face value in this instance because our knowledge has advanced. My question is: how far can this be taken? How far should it be taken? I see post after post from Creationists saying that the “day” used in Genesis shouldn’t be taken at face value; we can input “millions of years” in there. Is this valid?

What other sorts of Bible issues can be treated in this same “replace XXXXX with YYYYY” manner? I once debated in this same group that the vehement anti-homosexual message was in place because: a) it was a holdover from Hellenistic times, and the fledgling religion wanted to distance itself from most of these practices, and b) homosexuality in those times was often not monogomous, so the prohibition, just like Kosher laws earlier, was to protect the spread of disease. A modern, monogomous gay couple shouldn’t be subject to these regulations. The first response was that gay people cannot be monogomous, and the second response was that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, end of story. No “cut and paste” there.

What about Jesus? Can the Crucifixation/Resurrection saga simply be a metaphor for “Lead the best life that you can”? Why can (most) Christians accept that God isn’t a He, per se, but they reject that Heaven is a metaphor?

So, once again, what criteria are used in interpreting the Bible in this fashion? What criteria should be used? Are there any criteria?

Q

[betenoir]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
**The first response was that gay people cannot be monogomous, and the second response was that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, end of story.
Q **

So how come my gay aunt seems to be the only member of my faimly with any talent for monogomy at all? (Happy 18th anniversary, Aunt Kerry, Aunt Andrea!)

I’ve heard the arugument that all those other rules, like being Kosher, not wearing “diverse fabrics”, and punishing sex with your wife during her period with banishment are “ritual laws.”
Whereas the prohibiton against homosexuality is a “moral law.”
Meaning homosexuality still seems immoral to them, whereas the other stuff seems trivial. Even though there is no indication the Hebrews were making any such distinction.

I would love to see them establish some coherent criteria. I’m not holding my breath.

[Opus1]

The criteria are simple. If you like what the passage says, it is to be taken literally. If you do not, it is a metaphor, or obsolete, or it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean.

There’s a very fundamentalist Christian church which is was founed by practicing homosexuals. Basically, a bunch of fundy gays still wanted to be fundies and gay. So they reinterpreted every verse against homosexuality as actually forbidding homosexual prostitution, or child molestation, or orgies or some such nonsense. But every other verse in the Bible still means exactly what it says.

[lee]

A Catholic priest said everything before Abraham is metaphor. Abrahma is where it starts beign the literal truth.

[zev_steinhardt]

Of course, the answer to your question will depend on who you ask.

If you ask an Orthodox Jew why s/he keeps kosher, the answer you will receive is that God said so. Does keeping kosher make you healthier? Maybe. If so, it’s only a side benefit. The invention of refrigiration does not negate any of the laws of Kashrus. Ultimately, the same reasoning applies to all the commandments (including the prohibition on homosexual activity).

Christians will tell you that Jesus fulfilled the law and therefore there is no need to keep kosher anymore. Still has nothing to do with the invention of refrigiration.

Among Jews, you will find some who hold that each of the days of Genesis was only 24 hours. You will also find those who state that each day could have been millions of years. Ultimately, it’s not all that important to Jews. As long as you recognize the fact that God created the universe with a purpose and plan, the details are not so important. This is reflected in the belief among Orhtodox Jews that the Torah is not a history or science text, teaching us the exact sequence of events. That’s why only broad outlines are given in the Creation story.

Zev Steinhardt

[Satan]

The line is wherever the believer wishes it to be drawn.

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, two weeks, six days, 17 hours, 31 minutes and 23 seconds.
8149 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,018.65.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 7 hours, 5 minutes.

THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*

[jamesglewisf]

The line is wherever God drew it. Our challenge is to find the line. There is one correct interpretation, but many different applications. Our job is to carefully analyze a passage within its context and find the correct interpretation.

I take the Bible literally. It is literature. That means that you will find different types of figurative language including metaphors, proverbs, simile, hyperbole, and anthropomorphisms.

From Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart:

A good rule for interpretation is, “If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense.”

A metaphor is a comparison by direct statement. In John 15:1, Jesus states, “I am the true vine.” This doesn’t mean that He is a literal vine, but that He can be compared to one.

A simile is a comparison by use of the words “like” or “as.” Exodus 24:17 states, “The glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the mountain top.”

A hyperbole is an exaggeration for emphasis. In John 21:25 we find an example of this: “And there also were many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.”

Anthropomorphism, which is found particularly in the Old Testament, is attributing to God human characteristics or experiences. This can be seen in statements such as “It repented the Lord that He had made man” (Genesis 6:6, KJV)), and “The eyes of the Lord move to and fro to throughout the earth that He may strongly support those those whose heart is completely His” (2 Chronicles 16:9).

.
One thing I have found helpful is to find good commentaries. I recommend anything by:[/list][li]Warren Wiersbe[/li][li]John MacArthur[/li][li]R.C. Sproul[/li][li]G. Campbell Morgan[/li][li]Matthew Henry[/li][li]J.C. Ryle[/li][li]Charles Hodge[/li][/list]

[jamesglewisf]

About eating pork
The regulations about clean and unclean animals were abrogated by Jesus when he taught that inward purity was what mattered:

Mark 7:1-8
1 And the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered together around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,
2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?”
6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Later, Jesus explained Himself to His disciples:

Mark 7:18-23
18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him;
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” Thus He declared all foods clean.)
20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

In his vision, Peter was taught about the essential cleanliness of all animals:

Acts 11:1-10
1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying,
5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me,
6 and when I had fixed my gaze upon it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air.
7 "And I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Arise, Peter; kill and eat.’
8 "But I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9 "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.’
10 "And this happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.

This vision also spoke to the fact that the Gospel was for Jew and Gentile alike, but it primarily dealt with the issue of clean and unclean foods.

Paul spoke about the point several times:

Romans 14:14
14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

He said that these regulations were a shadow of what is to come, but the substance is Christ.

Colossians 2:16-17
16 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Colossians 2:20-21
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”

1 Timothy 4:1-5
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude;
5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Titus 1:15
15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

I beleive the answer, (and the question) arises in Matthew 5:18 “…Till Heavan & earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all is fulfilled”. According to Biblical experts & theologians (not to mention Peter himself), the “all” that will be “fulfilled” is JC dying on the Cross to wash away our sins. Ie, what JC was saying was that the Law would remain until He died and was able to give us our “New Covenant”. Thus, Christians have no obligation to follow the OT laws. (The Ot is still a valuable & great Book, but no longer the source of Law- for Christians).

Now, my Church follows only the Gospels as a source of the Word- ie what Paul said is very nice & all, but not Writ & Law. Thus, there are 2 basic laws- Don’t hurt others- and Don’t be intolerant.

Now, sure, Paul did not approve of certain types of Homosexuality. Then again, Paul did not approve of a LOT of things- one of them being ANY form of sex, including with your own wife. If we had all followed Pauls example, the world would have been without humankind in AD200.

[jmullaney]

A lot of confusion arises because people fail to realize Jesus essentially threw the book of the Levites out of the canon and explicitly stated that this book did not come from God but was only an attempt by men to codify their own doctrines. That still left in doubt issues like circumcision, though Paul of Tarsus covered this one however awkward his prose.

When Jesus said he was fullfilling the law, he obviously meant the original Ten Commandments as the text which follows mentions only these. What he taught is an explanation of what these commandments meant.

[Polycarp]

Nice topic. And James is not far off, if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, though I suspect from the tone of his posts that he’d take my approach as far too cavalier.

However, try the following:

[li]Certain parts of it were written as literal. They should be read as such.[/li][li]Other parts were written as poetry, records of legend, fiction, wisdom literature, and so on. They should be read as such.[/li][li]For all Christians, the NT makes it very clear that the application of the Law (which except for the Noachide Laws was directed at the Jews and at proselytes) is lifted, but rather its spirit, as covered in the Summary of the Law, is what is binding.[/li][li]Doctrines made clear in the text are binding; those read into it are pious opinions rather than dogma.[/li]
Naturally, the fun starts on which parts are literal and which not, which doctrines are implicit and which read into it, and so on! :rolleyes:

Joel, a fast question, not intended as hostile: what is the basis for your assertion about Jesus and (specifically) Leviticus vis-a-vis the Ten Commandments. Obviously, as the sole part of the Bible written (as opposed to inspired) by God’s own Hand, they were held in special reverence. But I know of nothing (except unthought attitude on the part of some mainstream Protestants) that says what you presented in your post. And it flies in the face of what Chaim and zev and I got into with regard to Hillel’s summary of the Law, which Jesus evidently quoted and made His own. Please expound; I’m interested and, while initially in disagreement, am willing to learn otherwise. Thnx.

[Satan]

Here is my problem with the literalist crew: Their response when people try and explain that the world is not 6,000 years old and pi is not 3 and that a global flood probably never happened is: “If we throw out one part of the Bible, we throw out the whole Bible.”

Explaining to them that this is a fallacy does not dissuade them one iota.

Fact is, I say that the whole damn thing could be a metaphor. Everything in the darn book from Genesis to the ending. Cities which actually did exist then being mentioned are coindicence. Jesus never existed. Everything is false!

So what?

As long as people get the morality within the book, what does it matter?

I hate hearing Christians say, “If Jesus didn’t really die on the cross for our sins, nothing matters.” Bullshit!

Say my kid is doing something bad. I tell my kid a story about another kid doing the same bad thing and the punishment this kid gets. My kid, thanks to my story, ceases doing the bad thing.

Does it matter if the kid I used in my story is actually me as a kid, my kid’s older sibling or someone who never existed? As long as he gets the lesson, who cares about the details?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, 21 hours, 5 minutes and 42 seconds.
8195 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,024.39.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 10 hours, 55 minutes.

THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
For all Christians, the NT makes it very clear that the application of the Law (which except for the Noachide Laws was directed at the Jews and at proselytes) is lifted, but rather its spirit, as covered in the Summary of the Law, is what is binding.

Webster’s isn’t helping explain what Noachide means. Any help?

Joel, a fast question, not intended as hostile: what is the basis for your assertion about Jesus and (specifically) Leviticus vis-a-vis the Ten Commandments.

Well, it violates our standing truce that we wouldn’t cross paths on the same thread again (poke, poke) but anything for you old friend.

Look at it this way. Either a) Levitus came from God or b) Leviticus did not come from God. We might attempt to conclude parts came from God and parts did not but I am rather certain Jesus’s commandments themselves lack very little so it would be a moot point. Nor would it be very likely that Jesus would have sat down and wisely explained away all flawed teachings in this book.

So, if there are no objections to such an either-or scenario, Jesus plainly states a case that this book is not divinely inspired in Mark chapter 7, and Matthew chapter 15. There are, I am told, 612 laws given in Leviticus, and this verse specifcally adresses the 612th, or last, given in the book.

Matthew 15:1-14

1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’
5 But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’
6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand:
11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”
13 He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Clearly, then, if, and I hope we can all agree, God does not change, and, as Jesus clearly states, the 612th law in Leviticus is wrong, and if we presume Jesus is right, then this clearly throws into severe doubt that any of Leviticus is divinely inspired, but apparently only the precepts of men taught as if they were doctrine.

Aside from this verse, Jesus also taught that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Since Leviticus clearly states over and over that sinners should be put to death, those verses too must not be divinely inspired.

So, is this book part of a tree which God did not plant? My answer would be yes.

What do you think? This is only a working hypothesis, and if anyone can shoot it down (starting from the axiom that Jesus taught the Truch) or correct my numbers I’d be interested.

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
For all Christians, the NT makes it very clear that the application of the Law (which except for the Noachide Laws was directed at the Jews and at proselytes) is lifted, but rather its spirit, as covered in the Summary of the Law, is what is binding.

Webster’s isn’t helping explain what Noachide means. Any help?

**

Noahide laws are laws that, in Jewish tradition, are binding upon all humanity (all humanity having descended from Noah). There are seven such commandments. The remainder of the commandments are only binding on Jews.

Zev Steinhardt

[lee]

what are those 7?

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by lee *
**what are those 7? **

1. Murder
2. Improper sexual relations
3. Idolatry
4. Eating flesh from a live animal
5. Blasphemy
6. Theft
7. To establish courts to enforce society’s laws.
   Zev Steinhardt

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by Satan:
As long as people get the morality within the book, what does it matter?

Well, you have to remember that for a major strain of fundamentalist/evangelical Chrsitianity, morality really isn’t the point–salvation is. In this view, all humans are sinful, and deserving of eternal punishment. The point of the gospel (according to this theology) is that Jesus died as a way of atoning for everyone’s inevitable sins, thus providing a way for those sinners who accept Jesus as their savior to have eternal life in heaven instead of in hell. If you read everything from parts of the New Testament (especially the Pauline parts) to Pilgrim’s Progress to those annoying evangelical tracts asking “Where will you spend eternity?”, it’s striking how little this version of Christianity has to do with any ethical code of conduct; it’s all about having the right “faith” or belief to achieve immortal life and not be tortured forever.

[tracer]

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

Now, sure, Paul did not approve of certain types of Homosexuality. Then again, Paul did not approve of a LOT of things- one of them being ANY form of sex, including with your own wife. If we had all followed Pauls example, the world would have been without humankind in AD200.

Don’t knock it, it worked for the Shakers.

[Fillet]

*Originally posted by lee *
**A Catholic priest said everything before Abraham is metaphor. Abrahma is where it starts beign the literal truth. **

lee, can you please clarify where you heard this statement? In all the years of Catholic schooling I lived through, we were never instructed to make any sort of division like that about what was literally true and what wasn’t. In fact, the Jesuit instructors I had in college were quite careful to explain that the Bible was considered a work of literature, although divinely inspired.

[More_Cowbell]

For a good summary of the Noachide law, see the book “Path of the Righteous Gentile” by Chain Clorfine. As a former Christian who is learning of this path, it’s a very helpful book as long as you know about the oral Torah and it’s non-literalness, which could confuse some in certain parts of the book.

Basically, the world is seperated into two groups, those under the covenant of Noah, and those under the covenant of Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant expands on the Noahide covenant. The B’nai Noach is actually the gentile form of Judasim.

Each of the 7 laws is expounded on, but zev basically sums it up. And for those who ask (and I’m sure there are those who do), sexual immorality prohibits incest, beastiality, adultery and homosexuality. The other 6 are pretty self explanatory, except for maybe idolotry. There are differing opinions on whether or not Christianity (and specifically the Trinity) constitute idolatry.

As for Paul teaching non-Kosher, considering that he ministered mostly to non-Jews, it shouldn’t be surprising. There is no law that Gentiles have to keep kosher in Judaism, only not to eat the limb of an animal while it is still alive.