Literal or Metaphorical - how did the Church decide?

[jordanmhall]

What is it epistemologically that made the Church claim some things in the Bible literally true and others just symbolic?

In other words, by what method do we say one thing in the bible is metaphor or symbolic - God’s way of communicating a truth to a civilization thousands of years ago, and another is literal?

A few examples might be:

(SYMBOLIC) the creation account of the universe according to genesis
(SYMBOLIC) Johns visions of judgement day in the book of Revelation involving “…the beast with seven heads and ten horns” (Revelation 17-8)
(SYMBOLIC) Jonah being in the belly of a whale for 3 days
(SYMBOLIC) Noah putting two of every species on an Ark
(LITERAL) Jesus literally multiplying loaves of bread
(LITERAL) Jesus literally being transfigured on the mount
(LITERAL) Moses literally parting a sea, creating water from rocks, etc.

I’ve always struggled with the idea that when it comes to certain stories in the Bible (John’s vision in Revelation, Noah being in a whale, extravagant stories etc), the Church has always simply said “Oh well that’s just symbolism or metaphor to communicate a truth to people thousands of years ago” in an ad hoc sort of way to defend the central position that Christianity is true.

 

[TK421]

This is a common misunderstanding but there is no dogmatic interpretation from the Church on the books of the Bible.

Influential saints and scholars throughout history have often interpreted passages of scripture in different ways because of what seemed to make the most sense and by considering what the purpose of a particular passage was. The many numbers used in Revelation are significant in Jewish tradition, so a person reading it can easily be clued in that what they are reading is probably symbolic. Some interpretations have become fairly mainstream but there are always new insights and blessings a person can receive by reading and meditating on scripture privately.

It (obviously) isn’t beyond God’s power for Jonah to be preserved inside a whale unharmed. So the question of literal versus symbolic has nothing to do with the plausibility of the story.

 

[Kei]

Some of this isn’t really definitively interpreted by the Church as depicted…but, as with anything, context clues help. The Bible isn’t just one big book, but a collection of books. Some books (like the gospel of Mark) are written as biographies, while others are not written in a literal genre.

 

[Prodigal1984]

You mean Jonah being in a whale?
It says a large fish.
He wasn’t just hanging out in its stomach for a few days, he died. He was brought back to life through his prayer. This is a forerunner to Christs death and resurrection.

 

[Magnanimity]

See if this short video is helpful. The church fathers approached the Old Testament allegorically, always looking for Christ in the text. I think Origen et al were likely on to something here.

 

[De_Maria]

What is it epistemologically that made the Church claim some things in the Bible literally true and others just symbolic?

In other words, by what method do we say one thing in the bible is metaphor or symbolic - God’s way of communicating a truth to a civilization thousands of years ago, and another is literal?

A few examples might be:

(SYMBOLIC) the creation account of the universe according to genesis

-I believe St. Augustine was very influential in this.

(SYMBOLIC) Johns visions of judgement day in the book of Revelation involving “…the beast with seven heads and ten horns” (Revelation 17-8)

-the Apostles.

(SYMBOLIC) Jonah being in the belly of a whale for 3 days

-Jesus explained this.

(SYMBOLIC) Noah putting two of every species on an Ark

-This was revelation made to Moses.

(LITERAL) Jesus literally multiplying loaves of bread
(LITERAL) Jesus literally being transfigured on the mount

Jesus did this in the presence of the Apostles and taught the meaning to the Apostles and the Apostles passed it on.

(LITERAL) Moses literally parting a sea, creating water from rocks, etc.

Moses and Joshua and the Levites.

I’ve always struggled with the idea that when it comes to certain stories in the Bible (John’s vision in Revelation, Noah being in a whale, extravagant stories etc), the Church has always simply said “Oh well that’s just symbolism or metaphor to communicate a truth to people thousands of years ago” in an ad hoc sort of way to defend the central position that Christianity is true.

I don’t know what you mean nor why you have a problem with it. Jesus Christ appointed the Church to Teach what He commanded. She does so.

 

[Dan_Defender]

This is a common misunderstanding but there is no dogmatic interpretation from the Church on the books of the Bible.

This. Apart from that, we have to exercise discernment. For example the injunction to pluck out your eye or cut off a limb, rather than sin. Such would be a sin against nature and clearly Jesus would not command us to destroy unnecessarily what God has created good. So the point he makes is not literal.

 

[jordanmhall]

What I’m saying is I don’t think many sensible people literally believe that heaven has pearly gates, roads paved with gold and rivers of milk and honey. Most people probably believe this imagery was communicated to convey a message and truth to people thousands of years ago in a way they might understand God’s power and plan for us, and rightfully so.

What I mean is how do you know that when Jesus “explained” Jonah in the whale, we are supposed to believe it (the story of Jonah in the whale) literally and not symbolically? Or, how do you know that when John described a beast with seven heads and ten horns on judgement day, we are supposed to believe it to be symbolic and not literal, or vice versa and so on and so forth. What is the epistemology and methodology through which one discerns whether something in the Bible literally happened or was a symbol or metaphor?

I ask because I feel like ad hoc arguments come up a lot in apologetics with regards to these issues. Hope that makes sense.

 

[jordanmhall]

Exactly. That was obviously a metaphor used to convey to us how contemptible sin is. Individual discernment sounds reasonable. Thanks for the response. I just struggle with it.

 

[jordanmhall]

I love Bishop Barron. I liked the video, thanks for your response. I still feel that simply appealing to the defense of “Oh thats allegory” or “Oh thats symbolism” seems ad hoc to me. Like if literal interpretations dont work, then one is forced to say its symbolic to not compromise the authenticity of the text or something. Know what I mean?

 

[De_Maria]

What I’m saying is I don’t think many sensible people literally believe that heaven has pearly gates, roads paved with gold and rivers of milk and honey. Most people probably believe this imagery was communicated to convey a message and truth to people thousands of years ago in a way they might understand God’s power and plan for us, and rightfully so.

ok.

What I mean is how do you know that when Jesus “explained” Jonah in the whale, we are supposed to believe it (the story of Jonah in the whale) literally and not symbolically?

First, it is both literal and symbolic.
Second, because Jesus explained that it is true and it is the symbol or sign of His own death and resurrection.

Or, how do you know that when John described a beast with seven heads and ten horns on judgement day, we are supposed to believe it to be symbolic and not literal, or vice versa and so on and so forth.

Because this is how the Church Teaches it.

You must be of Protestant background. You seem to assume that it is your responsibility to interpret the Bible alone. No. Here is part of the Catholic instruction on how to understand Scripture.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

What is the epistemology and methodology through which one discerns whether something in the Bible literally happened or was a symbol or metaphor?

Listen to the Church.

I ask because I feel like ad hoc arguments come up a lot in apologetics with regards to these issues. Hope that makes sense.

They may feel ad hoc to you, because you’re not familiar with the Traditions of the Church? You might try reading the Early Church Fathers and the lives of the Saints.

 

[Magnanimity]

Like if literal interpretations dont work, then one is forced to say its symbolic to not compromise the authenticity of the text or something. Know what I mean?

I do know what you mean, it can certainly seem ad hoc especially depending on what the guiding principles are that underlie one’s interpretation.

Bishop Barron is not alone in this understanding of how the patristics and medievals approached the scriptures though. Brad Jersak and David Bentley Hart also point out that what early thinkers were doing was beginning with the understanding of an infinitely good God, and sort of working backwards from there. This is along the lines of what Bishop Barron was saying that Origen did in that video. In other words, the starting point is always the nature of God and who he is, and once that is understood, any scripture passage must be read in the light of that understanding about God. And this is not just true for the Christian patristics. They point out Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish scholar who barely preceded the time of Christ, as having a similar approach. Philo rejected reading Old Testament passages which seem to be brutal as merely a historical narrative relating the “facts” of the Jewish people and what they did at this or that moment in time.

Another point is that certain other early thinkers like Saint Gregory of Nyssa believed that what you were looking for in the text was not the one and only correct interpretation. Rather, you were looking for a true reading, that is to say, a reading which is true. Since the Scriptures are multivalent, and there are several layers to them, which makes them practically inexhaustible in their riches, one can come away from the same passage of scripture with several truths that are expressed.

So what he and others are getting at is that you cannot approach the Scriptures in the way that protestants do, for example, where you believe the meaning is in the text and there is one and only one meaning and that is the meaning that was in the mind of the human author. That would be a deeply flawed mistake. Since God himself is involved on some level in the authorship then it would follow that many truths could be contained within any given passage. So you were always looking for a true reading, a reading that presents Christ, that is in keeping with the Tradition of the church. And if these constraints force one to allegory, then so be it. So, for my money, it seems to always be the case that whatever are your underlying principles of interpretation, these will guide what is possible in terms of interpreting this so that particular passage in the Scriptures. And, from what I understand, this hermeneutical approach held the church’s attention all the way up until the modern age, up until the reformation itself.