Literally Reading the Bible Literally
Literally has literally lost its meaning
In this post I am responding to another video made by my young friend, Luke Carrero In this video he discusses how the “rapture” is biblical. You can watch his video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSYlRZUhsk
Luke is mainly addressing the differences between the Pre-trib and Post-trib views, however, he does a rather poor job. With regard to the eschatological views posed in his video, I do not have a dog in the fight and so I will only be making comments on the eschatological front insofaras they pertain to the topic I am addressing, which would be hermeneutics or biblical interpretation. I’ll save the eschatology topic for another post.
At the start of his video, Luke makes the claim that his desire is to be as unbiased as possible. He says, “I wanted to be as non-biased (unbiased) as possible” Well, if you took the time to watch the video, you did not have to get very far to see that he failed miserably on that front. His argument is completely biased. In the same sentence he says, “…I wanted to make sure that if this [his view] was biblical, the Holy Spirit would show me.”
I smell squishy, feely, new-agey Christianity
To be fair he does mention that when he was doing what research he did, he told the Lord that he was willing to “swallow the hard pill” of being wrong. That said, he came out the other end holding the same position, which is fine; then claims that the Holy Spirit showed him his view was true, which is fine; however, he then says only one thing with regard to his main hermeneutical approach…he read the bible literally. So, his view is correct because the Holy Spirit told him so and he read the bible literally. Here’s the problem with a statment like this. He’s essentially saying that his view is the biblical one because the Holy Spirit showed him. What this implies is that any view that contradicts his view is unbiblical because the Holy Spirit showed him that his view was the correct view; not to mention that the tone is arrogant and uncharitable and only gets worse. Luke’s hermaneutic approach is very dangerous and very similar to how cult leaders talk. “I have direct revelation from God and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” Mormon’s use the same verbage every day. They’ll say things like, “The Holy Spirit gave me a burning in my bosom…”. What does that even mean? How is someone supposed to respond to a statement like that?
“This is true because the Holy Spirit showed me.” - Any cult leader
“O.K. Mr. Koresh, I guess I can’t argue with that since the Holy Spirit showed you.”
How would the Berean’s respond to that statement? “Since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11, HCSB).
What I am NOT saying:
That one should not be confident in the position that they hold.
That one shoud not believe that their position is right or correct and that other positions are wrong or incorrect. That said, there should be charity between believers on secondary issues.
That one cannot be confident that it was in fact the Holy Spirit that led them to their conclusion. The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth (Jn 16:13).
What I am saying:
Give some solid exegetical evidence to back up your claims.
It’s clear from the video that you have not done the homework, so don’t talk about something you are not ready to talk about…it’s confusing for your listeners.
If you haven’t learned how to interpret the bible properly, don’t tell people how to interpret the bible. Stop interpreting the bible through your feelings.
Give recommendations of books you’ve read representing the other side, not 2 books from the same author representing your own view, especially if you’re trying to be unbiased, like you say you are.
The problem
The problem with statements like the one above is that it is based on some obscure feeling, or maybe a view taught through tradition, but it is not based on any hard exegetical evidence. People who make bold claims like this with no evidence, have made a habit of imposing their traditions upon the text rather than letting the text inform their traditions and positions.
A Hard Truth
Here’s a hard truth there that needs to be said, heard and felt. The reason there are people making claims like this and interpreting the bible based on their feelings is because the American church has nutured a generation of biblically illiterate Christians. I most definitely do not say this to mean that I am anything special. However, there is a stark difference in the type of Christian raised in the modern day, non-denominational, hip and trendy, mega church and the type of Christian raised in a Presbyterian, Baptist, or Anglican, etc. church preaching orthodoxy. There’s really no difference in the Sunday sermons of these non-denomintaional mega churches and the children church lessons the littles ones are dismissed to every Lord’s Day. The “board” of these churches (because they’re definitely not elder lead and probably comprised of some females) might as well just let the kids stay in service and bring out the felt board, cut-outs, crayons, coloring books and gold fish to the sanctuary and have one lesson for everyone. It would make for an easier transition, I think.
I Literally just read the Bible..like, Literally!
Back to Luke’s hermeneutic approach of reading everything literally. Luke goes on to mention that a major problem with people trying to understand the bible is that they don’t read the bible literally. Well, what does he mean by “literally”? The word “literal” when properly defined, means, “letter” and the word “literally” means, “according to the letters”. The way we define the word “literally” today is, figuratively. Weird, right? For example: It might be raining really bad one evening and someone might say, “It’s literally raining cats and dogs!” No it’s not! Another way we mean literal is by taking in information as it is with no regard for context. I have some examples of this below.
"The word literal comes from the Latin word littera, which means letter, so when you literally go back to the origin of the word it means letter by letter, in its exact accurate sense, and literally means according to the letter of the language” (Barford, 2012).
What Luke is saying is that whatever the bible says in our english translations, we should interpret it word for word without any regard for context. Now, context is not merely the time period or original languages though those are critical components of context. The genre of literature is also a critically important part of looking at the context of a piece of literature, especially the bible. For example: In John 10, Jesus refers to himself as a “door”, by which people enter to receive salvation (Jn. 10:9). By Luke’s definiton of the word “literal”, Jesus is actually and physically a door, which would mean, he’d be made out of wood, he’d have a knob and a key hole and a set of hinges. Is this how we should interpret what Jesus is saying? Of course not! Jesus is not speaking literally, he is speaking figuratively. Jesus is saying that he is literally the only way to salvation, but he is giving a figurative illustration. Anyone with common sense knows this and I know that Luke knows this, but Luke’s definiton of the word “literal” is not consistant with what the word actually means. In actuality, I am literally interpreting the bible more literally than he is.
Another example would be in Psalm 50, where the writer, Asaph, writes the words of God, “…for every animal in the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10, HCSB). Are we to take that literally, as Luke defines the word ‘literal’? God owns the cattle on only a thousad hills? There’s more than a thousand hills in the state of Alabama alone, so to take that literally, is not all that impressive. There are farmers who have more cows than that. No! The picture being illustrated in this verse is that God owns everything. God owns all the animals, all the cows on all the hills…and all the hills themselves. Furthermore, this verse specifically shows how “thousand” doesn’t necessarily mean a literal thousand. So, when we get to the book of Revelation and read about a thousand year reign, it’s not a stretch in the least to think that ‘thousand’ could just mean a long period of time rather than a literal ‘thousand’ years. There’s far more and better evidence to support this particular claim, however, this was just to illustrate Luke’s faulty definition of the word, ‘literal’. Remember, no eschatology comments this time. Sticking to the topic.
The fact is, we should read the bible literally, meaning, we should read and interpret the bible according to the letter of the language. Of course, as I stated above, we also must take into account the genre of literature. Scripture is multi-faceted with regard to the styles of literature it contains. While we can say that we should interpret scripture literally, the word, '“literally” means according to the letter, which also includes the style of literature. What this means is, you would not use the same specific rules of interpretation for a book of poetry like the Psalms or Song of Solomon as you would for a historical book like Genesis or Exodus or wisdom literature like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. You would not use the same rules of interpretation for a book of law like Leviticus and Deuteronomy as you would for prophetic books like Ezekiel or Revelation. Of course all scripture is gloriously connected and intertwined, but in order to righlty divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), we have to respect the specific contexts in which they were written, from whom they were written, for whom they were written, and in what style of literature they were written.
The majority of Luke’s video focus’s on whether the rapture is biblical or not. He admits that there is no mention of the rapture in the Old Testament, but then alludes to Paul’s ‘mystery’ passages as referring to the rapture. There are only 2 passages in the New Testament, by my count, where Paul talks about a mystery. Ephesians 3:3-6 and Colossians 1:26-29. The Epheshians passage reads as follows:
“For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. 13 So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.”
As you can see there is no reference to the rapture whatsoever. The Colossians passage reads as follows:
“24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.”
Again, no reference or even implication to the rapture. He then connects his reference to Paul’s mystery claims to 1 Thessalonians 4, when Paul says, “For we say this to you by a revelation from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep.
The two main points of what Paul is referring to as being a mystery is that
The Gentiles are now welcomed into the family of God and;
That Christ, the hope of glory lives within the heart of the believer.
Luke is doing a lot of theological gymnastics…no he’s not even doing that. It’s not like he’s saying something and then providing some sort of scripural evidence to show how he got there, however bizzare it may be. He’s simply saying things that make no sense whatsoever. He’s not even being literal by his own definition of the word.
A Contradiction?
Luke says something interesting at 5:28; he quotes a bible verse which, says, “No prophesy of scripture comes from one’s own private interpretation” (2 Pt. 1:20). To that I would say, “YES and Amen!” But wait, what did Luke say at the beginning of the video? He said, “I wanted to know that if this [his view] was biblical, the Holy Spirit would show him.” So, here we are. Is Luke saying that he got his own private interpretation from the Holy Spirit? Again, it is not wrong to say and be thankful for the Holy Spirit’s guidance, for we know that the Holy Spirit leads us to all truth (Jn 16:13); that said, let the scriptures interpret the scriptures rather than simply being satisfied with some inner peace based on a 1 dimensional reading of the text. That said, some scriptures are very straight forward. Jeremiah 17:9 comes to mind, “The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable—who can understand it?” Just because we love Jesus and have been saved by His grace does not mean that our hearts can no longer deceive us. We are still sinful creaturea and at times still dumb sheep prone to wander; even in our hermeneutic.
About half way through, Luke starts to rant and get emotional. He starts making more claims still giving no exegetical or historical evidence to back them up. He says he’s being unbiased but then doesn’t give a fair representation to the other side or even give good evidence for his own argument. His assertions are all based on feelings.
I Couldn’t Do It
Now, I know I said I wasn’t going to get into any eschatology in this post, but I have to here. First, Luke says, that he has and everyone else should read the most metaphorical and symbolic book in the entire bible literally. Let that sink in. Second, Luke misrepresents what the scriptures say and gives a great example of how his interpretation imposes itself upon the text rather than being formed by the text. Luke misquotes Revelation 13 saying that, “all authority is given to Antichrist to wage war against the saints.” That is NOT what the text says. Let’s look at it real quick:
The word antichrist is nowhere found in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13 there is a beast that comes out of the water and is given authority by the dragon. So, there are two beasts in this passage but no “antichrist” at least not in the way the majority of us have grown up learning about “antichrist”. Yes these beasts are anti-christ obvioulsy, but there is not singular entity called “The Antichrist” in the book of Revelation.
The Beast was “given authority to act for 42 months…and he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them.” (Rev. 13:5,7 HCSB). One doesn’t need to look further than the scriptures and other historical records to see that this is a reference to Rome and more specifically Nero as the beast.
While the Beast was granted some authority, he was not granted “All” authority. Only Jesus has “All” authority. . Futhurmore, it’s interesting that Luke would say, the “antichrist” had “all” authority when verse 7 of Revelation 13 says, “he was permitted to wage war…”. I wonder who gave him the permission. Hmmm. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:18-20).
Conclusion
Here’s the thing. As I have said before, Luke is a good kid. I like him and wish the best for him and his family. That said, the ideas he is espousing are simply not scriptural, not historical and his hermaneutic simply doesn’t make sense. When interpreting God’s word, we have to let scripture interpret scripture rather than imposing our presuppositions upon the text. Scripture must be the lense through which we see the world, not the other way around.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Mt 28:18–20). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Col 1:24–28). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Eph 3:7–13). (2016). Crossway Bibles.”As you can see there is no mention of the rapture whatsoever. The Colossians passage reads as follows:The
Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Eph 3:1–6). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
Barford, V. (2012, March 14). Why is “literally” such a troublesome word? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706#:~:text=%22The%20word%20literal%20comes%20from,the%20letter%20of%20the%20language.
Well done