Unyielding Literalism: You Reap What You Sow: Unfiltered Fridays

A while back on Unfiltered Fridays I blogged about how bad Bible interpretation really can be harmful. I mentioned that I’m exposed to my share of interpretive incoherence because I’m known on the internet for my paranormal fiction and blogging on strange things people believe about the Bible and the ancient world. But that earlier post was about how historical circumstances produced challenges to biblical veracity and authority. Unfortunately, sometimes Bible believers have no one but themselves to blame for making the content of Scripture seem utterly absurd.

Over the course of the last month I’ve had the dispiriting experience of fielding several emails asking me to inject some sanity into the new flat earth movement circulating among Christians. Yes—you read that correctly: there’s a growing cadre of “Bible teachers” busily contending for the faith by teaching their followers (in church and online) that the Bible requires us to believe the earth is flat. This idea is related to another “Bible fact” that is experiencing a revival: geocentrism, the idea that the earth is the center of our solar system, not the sun.((See for example K. Keating, The New Geocentrists (Rasselas House, 2015). “Biblical geo-centrism” is based on the hyper-literal interpretation of verses like Psa. 104:5 (the sun and other planets must revolve around the earth since the earth cannot be moved).))

Now, I know what you’re thinking. What about space travel? Satellites sent into orbit that enable (dare I say) global communication? Airline flight patterns that use the curvature of the earth to cheat passengers out of extra frequent flyer miles (okay, that isn’t the carrier’s motivation)? The truth is these are conspiracies contrived by people who hate the Bible. That’s what science does . . . make up lies to cover up the fact that the Bible has the truth about how God created the earth. Sigh.

Sanctified Brainwashing

By what process of hermeneutical alchemy is all this possible? It’s actually pretty simple: hyper-literalism. The sanctified flat-earthers have blindly presumed that the Bible’s pre-scientific cosmology—which is well-known to Old Testament scholars—has to be taken as a literal reality that trumps basic science (and human experience) or else biblical inspiration and inerrancy have to be rejected. This thinking is deeply flawed.

The Bible’s pre-scientific cosmology is what it is because God decided to prompt people who lived in a pre-scientific age to produce the books of the Bible, not because the earth is really round and flat with a solid dome over it. ((For a description of Old Testament cosmology, see my sidebar in the Faithlife Study Bible.)) (The flat-earthers and geocentrists sort of skip the dome part . . . unless they deny the lunar landings and the existence of the international space station). God didn’t ask the people he picked to be something they weren’t (modern astronomers and physical cosmologists who understood celestial mechanics). He prompted them via his Spirit to tell some important truths: All we know was created by God—including us—and so we are accountable to him and dependent on him for life beyond this terrestrial existence. The biblical writers didn’t need a modern science education to communicate, through their own worldview frame of reference and symbolic metaphors well-known throughout the ancient world (their context), who the true Creator was and why it mattered. That’s taking the Bible for what it is and interpreting it in light of its own context, not ours. But too many Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that absolute, uncompromising literalism is a synonym for believing in inspiration and inerrancy. It isn’t—and never has been throughout the entire history of believing Christianity.

Literalism as Idolatry

I’ve been a Christian for 35 years. For most of that time my church context has been either fundamentalism (my early years as a believer) or what I’ll call for convenience, popular evangelicalism that divorces itself from a reformed or creedal heritage. Both of those Christian sub-cultures exalt the “literal” interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to creation and prophecy. Granted, the notion that the Bible teaches a flat earth isn’t common to those contexts. But over-emphasis on biblical literalism has a cost. Literalism can become idolatry. During my teaching career I’ve had students espouse a number of preposterous Bible teachings, among them:

  • Babies are really stored in a man’s sperm (the Hebrew word for “seed” [zrʿ] refers to children and is never used of women); genetics is a lie (Gen 13:16; zrʿ = offspring)
  • The Bible teaches teleportation (Acts 8:39-40)
  • Flying saucers are piloted by angels (Ezekiel 1; Zech. 5:5-8)
  • Animals could talk in Eden (Genesis 3)

I could extend the list, but I think you get the point. But here’s a point that’s less obvious that you might miss: When we unquestioningly teach Bible students that literalness is next to godliness, we teach them to think poorly. Don’t believe me? Read on.

What does “literal” mean anyway?

Many readers have heard the old bromide in defense of literal Bible interpretation: “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” It’s pithy. If you don’t think too much about it, it might even sound like it makes sense. It’s actually not helpful.

It might sound odd, but “literal interpretation” needs to be interpreted. Its meaning is far from clear. Consider the word water. What does it “literally” mean? Is it a noun or verb? In either case, what exactly is its “plain sense”? How about some options:

Walk on the Water

Noun:

    • A chemical compound (H2O)
    • Liquid beverage (“I’d like some water”)
    • Body of water (“look at all that water”) . . . but which do we mean?

Watered

    • Ocean
    • Sea
    • Lake
    • Pond
    • River
    • Stream
    • Creek
    • Inlet

Verb:

living water square

  • To irrigate (“water the fields”)
  • To provide hydration (“he watered the cattle”)
  • To salivate (“my mouth watered”)
  • To cry (“his eyes watered”)

So which of the above is the “literal” meaning? Which one is the “plain” meaning? That’s the point. They’re all plain. What distinguishes them is context and metaphor. Things get even more interesting when you move into metaphorical meanings for water—which can be exactly what context requires. “Water” can speak metaphorically of a life source, purification, transformation, motion, or danger. The metaphors work because of the physical properties of water—and still describe real things. Non-literal doesn’t mean “not real.” And as the saga of sanctified geo-centrism tells us, devotion to literalism won’t necessarily produce accurate—or even coherent—Bible interpretation.

***

Agree? Disagree? Want to qualify? Sound off in the comments, like and share with your friends, and check by every Friday for more unfiltered insight from Dr. Michael Heiser.

Share
Written by
Michael S. Heiser
View all articles
21 comments
  • Your interpretation of the phrase “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” is hyper-literal to those that use the phrase and still understand “context and metaphor”. I agree that some might not understand context and metaphor, but I believe it is way less than you imply in this article. Which is why making narrow and hyper-statements about interpretation is not very helpful—even by academics. As a layman, I personally use all the resources available to teach. Yes I am discerning with literal Truths, but I am not afraid of literal Truth—always using scripture with scripture.

    There are times when I teach over 150 times a year. I take seriously the caution that not many should be teachers. I believe I do so more seriously than many academics. I cannot tell you how common it is today for pastors and academics to tell people that they cannot understand the Bible on their own. This is the unbiblical teaching that is more troubling, not “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” Hermeneutics was not invented by academics, only the love of using the word as a hammer was. Heaven was filled with saints long before academics became infatuated with the word hermeneutics, context, and metaphor.

    • God bless:

      The best sentence I have read in years:

      “Heaven was filled with saints long before academics became infatuated with the word hermeneutics, context, and metaphor.”

      It gives little sheep like me hope.

      Blessings.

    • Fred,

      It doesnt help when you misunderstand and confuse biblical studies with praxis and salvation. Your last sentence is a nasty red herring. We all know and understand that Abram/Abraham is the father of faith, and yet he didnt go around carrying a Bible in his hand. Please, seek understanding and wisdom before prematurely displaying straw-man arguments.

    • Well Fred, I don’t see that your response is any better than Dr. Heiser’s blog. The simple truth is this, much of Scripture is a mystery to layman because they don’t have the tools they need to interpret the Bible literally. Two thousand plus years ago people lived the “sitz im leben” of Scripture. They didn’t need histories, lexicons, grammars, etc. Oh by the way, I imagine that you will ridicule my use of an academic German phrase. But nothing in English quite gets to the literal truth as that German phrase when speaking of the context of life. And I don’t know what “always using scripture with scripture” has anything to do with “literal truth” unless of course you mean you are using one historical reference to verify another.

      Anyway, your obvious bias against academics shines through. Again, by the way, do you use terms like rapture, trinity, inerrancy and the like? They are just terms invented by academics to communicate literal truth, and so is the word “hermeneutics.” Could you please publish your teaching schedule–one hundred fifty times a year works out to three times a week–a hefty load indeed. I wonder how much time you have to do serious, accurate study. Anyway please publish that schedule so that I can make sure I’m not there.

      God Bless…

  • Mike,
    Love your article. You reminded me of some things I heard before but you put them into a “cogent articulation” for me. I have a close relative who is a full blown naturalist / self proclaimed atheist. His main objection to the Bible, and hence the Christian faith that he has now rejected, is a literal view of Genesis 1. Thanks to your article, I can hopefully come to some meeting in the middle with him, and actually concede the point–Genesis 1 COULD be viewed as poetry and not as a modern scientific treatise on how God created the earth. My caveats (which are big for me, for I am a strong fundamentalist) are these: 1. Before matter, there was God. When God spoke the creation, then matter appeared and not before. 2. Moses believed, grammatically, in a literal 6 24 hour creation week, as we compare Genesis 1 and Exodus 20. 3. A naturalistic paradigm can’t be used to explain the miracle of creation.

    On the other hand, you mentioned something disturbing. In your list of “preposterous Bible teachings”, you mention talking animals in Eden, specifically citing Genesis 3. Obviously you are referring to the serpent who spoke to Eve. It seems to me that there is a line that you have crossed, a line that could lead to heterodoxy, if not outright heresy. For one thing, the catalyst for sin entering into the world was through the communicating serpent (perhaps Satan embodying what may have been a legged lizard?), as Paul referenced in 2 Cor 11. He believed that Satan literally communicated with Eve in the pre-fallen Eden, and consequently, sin, as a law and entity entered into the world in space-time (to quote Francis Schaeffer) . Second, in Genesis 3:1, we read these words from the serpent: “Did God actually say . . . ?” Indeed the first question recorded in Scripture is questioning the word of God.

    I will pose in question form, the issue of God’s creating the earth in 6 24 hour days, along with talking animals in pre-fall Eden: Could God do it–as in performing the miracle of creation in 6 24 hour days? Obviously, yes. If that is the case, then couldn’t God arrange for animals and man to be able to communicate in literally a perfect world? I would submit the same. If the serpent didn’t communicate with Eve in the Garden before the fall, how did sin enter the world? I would submit that in your denial of talking animals in the pre-fall Garden, you are denying Paul’s understand of how sin entered the world, as he relates it in Romans 5, which is a dangerous place to be. The burden of proof is on you, sir, to explain how sin entered the world, apart from the serpent communicating to Eve and remain true to Scripture.

    With all that said, I do, in large measure enjoy your perspectives. You remind me of a professor I had in seminary who engaged us with a lot of outside the box thinking, particularly in regards to the Jew-gentile dynamic that was so prevalent in the First Century. In my opinion we must utilize this understanding as we read the epistles or we will miss much of what the Scripture is saying, and end up with wrong headed ideas and interpretations, and subsequent applications. Keep up the good work, sir!

    • God bless:

      While I agree with the following:

      ” 1. Before matter, there was God. When God spoke the creation, then matter appeared and not before.”

      I do think that there was a process and work involved, as per

      Proverbs 8:

      22 “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work,
      the first of his acts of old.
      23 Ages ago I was set up,
      at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
      24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
      when there were no springs abounding with water.
      25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
      before the hills, I was brought forth,
      26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
      or the first of the dust of the world.
      27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
      when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
      28 when he made firm the skies above,
      when he established the fountains of the deep,
      29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
      so that the waters might not transgress his command,
      when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
      30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
      and I was daily his delight,
      rejoicing before him always,
      31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
      and delighting in the children of man.
      32 “And now, O sons, listen to me:
      blessed are those who keep my ways.
      33 Hear instruction and be wise,
      and do not neglect it.
      34 Blessed is the one who listens to me,
      watching daily at my gates,
      waiting beside my doors.
      35 For whoever finds me finds life
      and obtains favor from the LORD,
      36 but he who fails to find me injures himself;
      all who hate me love death.

      Blessings.

      • I agree about the process, for Gen 1:2 speaks of darkness over the deep, etc. However, it is clear that when God began to work, time began. Also, to reiterate what you said, that matter did not exist until God pronounced it, for Hebrews 11:3 says, By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

        Consequently, here’s how I see it. God spoke into existence the “raw materials”, then on the first creation day He said, “let there be” and there was; hence, the beginning of time, and the creation week.

        • God bless:

          I understand your point. I do believe that God is the creator of heavens and Earth. But there is a chance that something abnormal happened that made God modify the region of His Kingdom where we inhabit.

          I just do not like to be so dogmatic that I exclude the possibility of alternate developments.

          Somebody suggested that the whole of the Universe works in 4 dimensions, except a tiny little region (where we happen to exist) which works in 3 dimensions, and has as a characteristic the linearity of time.

          Outside this particular region there is no linear time.

          Suppose for a minute that science finds that the above theory is true, one has to be careful about what one infers from the Bible, as it may say something misunderstood by us, or may not say anything at all about certain details.

          Long time ago I read in one of Mr. Barnhouse;s book, that He basically believed that God’s Kingdom is much larger that what we imagine.

          It seems that God appointed Agents to watch for different areas, and in our particular area Heyleel failed miserably, and tried to do a coup.

          Eventually Jesus Christ will come with HIs saints to take care of business, and get rid of Heyleel (modern satan) and his devils.

          Then all will be restored. Maybe that restoration will consist of going back to an original 4 dimension state.

          Like Dr. Heiser said: “a serious Christian can be a serious scientist”.

          We know who the creator of all is: Yahweh, the self-existent, but we need to be careful with trying to give a simplistic explanation to what may be a complex one.

          Blessings.

      • Also, could the passage you cited also be the exaltation of wisdom, and with the supreme value of the sons of God, i.e., those in covenant relationship with Him, to seek wisdom, for after all God’s wisdom was what formed and shaped the universe? Though it “God spoke” and “there it was”, God still employed wisdom to make it happen. You might have missed the point of Pro 8.

        • God Bless:

          I have been accused of misinterpreting Proverbs 8 many times.

          To me it is very clear that it talks about Christ, and how He was with the Father together doing all the work as a master workman.

          Colossians 1:
          15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

          I am glad that I am not the only one to think so. Many church fathers though that Christ was the Wisdom of God.

          For an excellent article see:

          Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?

          James D. G. Dunn

          Barton, S. C. (Ed.). (1999). Where shall wisdom be found?: wisdom in the Bible, the church, and the contemporary world (p. 75). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

          The resource can be obtained in L6:

          https://www.logos.com/product/17610/where-shall-wisdom-be-found-wisdom-in-the-bible-the-church-and-the-contemporary-world

          Blessings.

    • I’d be careful about coming to some compromise on Genesis 1. When you do that you begin to destroy the gospel message. I’d remind you of what Thomas Huxley (secular humanist known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”) had to say:

      “I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

      • God bless:

        I do not think I caught your drift. To me, anyone not anchored in the Rock Jesus Christ, is in spiritual quicksand.

        Was Jesus Christ the Messiah? read the following article, and reflect on what it says:

        Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?

        James D. G. Dunn

        Barton, S. C. (Ed.). (1999). Where shall wisdom be found?: wisdom in the Bible, the church, and the contemporary world (p. 75). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

        The resource can be obtained in L6:

        https://www.logos.com/product/17610/where-shall-wisdom-be-found-wisdom-in-the-bible-the-church-and-the-contemporary-world

        Salvation is personal, each has to decide if what God said is true or not.

        Unfortunately, nothing one says or does will convince a Tare that God is the creator and that Jesus Christ is the Savior.

        Matthew 13:24-30; and Matthew 13:36-43.

        Blessings.

  • These gathering comments about the acceptance of Genesis as Truth, metaphor, or poetry is the very reason academics generally do more harm than good—yet they disparage the lay person. In the hands of the humble, hermeneutics is neither a hammer nor a halo, context is neither clarity nor confusion, and metaphor is not mush or mystical, but they are misused—why—pride. The hermeneutical method is not new or reserved for scripture. It has been used throughout history to study the writings of all authors, but especially historical writers. The Bible is the history of God’s work. Again I will say, Heaven is filled with saints that never heard of, seen, or read an academic—in fact, most saints today and in all the ages past.

    Re 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousand…

    Hebrews tells each person that the Bible is reliable. Is this verse poetry or literal Truth? What is the context? Are the words “angels and reliable” metaphor?

    Heb 2:1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.

    Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution…

    Is this next verse in Hebrews literal Truth? This verse tells you that your faith should have no trouble with the truth of this verse.

    Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

    Dr. Heiser has a birthday and he can know the very day. He can also know all four seasons. This is Truth because God set earth’s time clock and all of creation has kept time by these next two verses.

    Ge 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

    Ge 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, Ge 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

    A good example of how academic pride is so dangerous is N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn. Both great and brilliant men of God, but both would have you believe that every saint has misunderstood a subject as important as righteousness for two thousand years. Would God really permit this confusion? It is no doubt that they understand that God is not a God of confusion? Only academic pride could reach such a conclusion without questioning the power of God. As in ages past, academics fail as much or more in God’s Word than layman—they certainly cause more harm, and the comments in this blog demonstrate this clearly.

    1 Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints…

    • It still surprises me when someone who deeply respects Scripture is treated as if he doesn’t respect the reliability of scripture. Dr. Heiser, by his respect for Scripture and desire that everyone respect scripture, says that Scripture is not always to be interpreted literally. I believe that is true and respectful of God and of those he chose to be the authors of Scripture. Do you believe that scripture uses metaphor? Wouldn’t it be disrespectful to treat that passage as being literal, when the author intended it to be understood as a metaphor. Why treat Dr. Heiser as needing to be lectured on the reliability of Scripture when he simply reminds us that we need to interpret Scripture according to its context. Please count me as a brother who believes in the reliability of Scripture above anything else for Salvation and guidance in life.

      • God bless:

        Good input, I agree with you, the problem is that I am baffled by how some exegetes interpret a passage to be allegorical, metaphorical, or literal in an arbitrary way.

        Are they the authors to tell when something is figurative and when is literal?, there is much more to it, to us without the Holy Spirit and the guidance He provides, it is nearly impossible to get it right.

        Modern Church experience (charismatic and pentecostal) know first hand that many passages in the Gospels are literal, that the power of the Holy Spirit exists and operates, that miracles do occur as God wishes, that laws of physics can be broken and/ or bent at His will.

        So just because a mere mortal says cessationism is the rule, and he / she holds to a particular denomination view, should we deny actual experience of the supernatural in modern community of faith?

        Parallel to it, if science discovers that there are multiverses instead of a Universe, should we deny it because some particular group has decided that their interpretation of the Bible record is absolute truth, and precludes the possibility of parallel universes?

        I really liked what Dr. Heiser said: “a serious Christian can be a serious scientist”. God expects us to use our given capacities of rationality, relationally, and creativity to investigate truth, they are not meant to be left out and follow blindly a particular group’s views without critically reflecting on the implications of its proposed theology.

        A non-expert opinion of course.

        Blessings.

    • God bless:

      I like your arguments.

      To me exchanging points of view is good, because it lets us see angles that we would not usually see.

      I believe I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt: the Holy Spirit may have guided a person to at least some truth.

      Many Scholars and many more lay persons may be very wrong, but it is my duty to check all and retain what is good.

      Do you have all ultimate truth down? I doubt it, the only fully orthodox Being is God, everyone else has but a poor contextual interpretation of the Bible.

      Having said that, I have to trust in what Christ said:

      John 10:

      3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.

      To me all them constructs of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a stranger’s voice, to me it is Jesus Christ together with Father creating and shaping all.

      That is what I get, and that is what I will tell Father that I got, not somebody else’s interpretation.

      The principle is Jesus saying: “what do you read in Scriptures”, not what Gamaliel or the Pharisees, or Sadducees interpreted it to be for you.

      Blessings.

  • For most of my life, I have never really viewed science as a natural enemy of faith although specific individuals can be. I think there is a fundamental truth about science and that is that it operates on its own faith system, but instead of faith it is called theorem and just as people will invest heavily in their particular theology, scientists will invest heavily in a particular theory.

    I came out of college with dual majors in chemistry and physics and my personal journey in my Christian faith I of course had to face the Biblical account of creation. Now I may be totally off the reservation, but in Deut 32:7, “Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations;” it appeared to me that Moses was alluding to two time lines. Then reading Genesis, in the creation account before the creation of Adam, the perspective of the narrative would be of someone watching the creation. Then in Ps 90:4 we read, “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

    So, what would creation look like from God’s perspective. What does science teach us about time and space and how does that affect the Biblical account? After looking into the implications I’m personally comfortable that the Biblical account and science aren’t as far apart as people would like to think.

    I say that because I’ve found that among individuals in both groups, that such an approach can remove the differences, it is rejected. One one side it is because it isn’t based on “faith” and on the other because there is a general lack of interest which leads me to believe it is more fun to criticize than to find common ground.

    Also, thank you Dr. Heiser for an interesting article.

    • God bless:

      Good post, this is more in line of what I would think God wants us to do.
      He wants us to reflect critically and with the help of the Holy Spirit get to a more perfect understanding of the nature of reality and of absolute truth.

      Mr. Donald Barnhouse in one of his books suggested that there may be different timelines, and ours in particular is the one where the time variable became dominant.

      The other plane of existence, does not have time as primary variable, and thus it is hard for us to grasp existence in that plane.

      I know Yahweh the self-existent is the creator of all, and I know that eventually our understanding of the time space plane will corroborate God as sole creator.

      Blessings.

    • Rick,

      Thanks for your comment. Just for fun I sometimes look at the pattern of the creation story and the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and how life began on earth. It is surprising how accurate the account of Genesis is when you stop thinking of a day in terms of the time it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis.

      Then it is amazing to think that a people who believed the earth to be flat, somehow wrote an account of creation that is sequentially accurate as far as we know through modern science.

      I too would like to thank Dr. Heiser for his article.

  • I agree with Fred. I often debate this very issue and will use the phase, “a plain reading,” or something to that effect. What I mean by that includes with it the understanding of context. Your example of the word “water” doesn’t really take away from the position the majority of, what you might call, literalist hold. The elephant in the room is obviously the creation week, but the question is not whether it is a literal or metaphoric creation. It’s without a doubt to mean that God literally created the world. The debate is over the specific nuance of meaning in the word for day: Yom. Even if you interpret that word to mean a long period of time, it is still literally a “day” or “age.”

    Allow me to give you the other perspective. I have often been frustrated in these debates with a hyper-metephorism, if you will. Many scholars and laypersons today are claiming that books of the bible—which are clearly written as history—are mere metaphor. A prime example is the book of Joshua being called political discourse written about King Josiah. This is absurd when you consider the line of David being traced back through the book of Joshua, particularly in Rahab, who was living in Jericho at the time of the conquest. Theologically (as with the Gen 3 mentioned in previous comments), you run into major problems. Specifically, the prophets often quote God as recalling the Exodus and Conquest to prove his might and providence and the establishing of the nation of Israel, thus substantiating his claim as their God. These books are clearly written as a literal history, including Genesis. The question you must ask yourself is where you draw the line in history. Where does the bible go from metaphor to a record of history? Is it Genesis 4? Perhaps after the conquest? Until recently even King David was considered to be a myth by scholars. A plain reading of these books, if you are using a consistent hermeneutic, is that they are written as history. To be fair, you may be able to point to some literary devices being used in any book of history, and it would be prudent to understand the literary devices of an historic culture from which a document may come.

    I agree with your overarching claim that some may take too far the literal view of the bible. Some phrases are clearly metaphor even within the context of history. The verses used to claim the earth is flat, as far as I’m aware, are found in the poetic books. So it’s really not fair to imply that all literalist are flat-earthers. Far more devastating to an overly cautious holding to inerrancy (however ludicrous) is playing fast and loose with the Word of God. I would be far more on guard in allowing a secular culture into the interpretation of the bible to which you hold, especially in that it is based on limit knowledge of science and archeology. Simply put, a hyper-metaphorism is just as dangerous, and more so, as hyper-literalism.

  • Before I tell you why you have misunderstood my comments in the two previous blogs, let me answer a few comments from other blogs written specifically to my blog.

    First, I have no idea why you would think that I would lie about my teaching schedule. I taught a men’s ministry at a church on Wednesday mornings, a homeless ministry at a church on Tuesday nights, and a seeking ministry in a garage bay in a run-down neighborhood on Saturday mornings. Yes, God did send the lost to that ministry and men gave their life to Christ in that dirty garage in a part of town academics, pastors, and church leaders do not visit. I also work with a small group that carries the Gospel to fairs and festivals. Each year thousands respond to the Gospel, setting face to face, with nothing but the Bible in our hand and the Gospel on our lips.

    Secondly, I do have the tools to study and teach God’s Word. First, I have the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised to all…not just academics. Secondly, I have owned and used Logos Platinum back when it was simply Logos. I was probably one of the first to buy Dr. Heiser’s study of Hebrew—back when it was on a DVD or CD. If academics want to school layman, remember we are not children, but we are God’s children. No I do not quite have as full a teaching schedule at this moment because God has given me a respite to write my sixth book entitled “Fun Faith Failure” (Claiming God’s promises for your children). By the way, the book is free because everything I do is free to all.

    Thirdly, the author of almost every book ever written expected the reader to read the book knowing “when the plain sense of something makes common sense no other sense is necessary”. Writers are not trying to trick the reader, and God is not trying to mislead us.
    Fourthly, I am sure you have read many commentaries and books, and if you have you will see that academics are quite clear and sharp in order to define their disagreements with other academics. I am quite surprised that you find my comments harsh.

    Fifth, instead of using the word “praxis” to describe the making of disciples it may help to use “when the plain sense of something makes common sense no other sense is necessary”. This way you can stay out of the company of philosophers like Marx, Plato, Kant and etc. In other words, are you thinking the Great Commission through or are you carrying it through…this is an important question. In fact, this was the reason for my comments in Dr. Heiser’s blogs.
    Lastly, Ezra, an academic, thought man could put “a hedge about the law”, in order to stop sin, and they proceeded to do so—giving the Jewish people the traditions that led them astray. The traditions were first oral and then codified in the Talmud and other commentaries on the Law. The Pharisees believed in God, worshipped God, studied the scripture, believed the scripture, they were the academics of the day, and yet they lost their soul. The only thing that stops sin is God’s Word and the tall weeds of academics, (scripture and philosophy), has led every generation into confusion.

    Yes, Dr Heiser has great understanding and no doubt loves God, but he was very sloppy with this blog in attacking those that take God at His Word. Lay teachers understand genre, metaphor, idioms and we understand the difference between the spirit of Truth and the spirit of error. Furthermore we understand the great teacher, the Holy Spirit.

    Academics need to understand that two great sins are arising today in the church by pride…that people cannot understand the scripture, and praxis, (using the bloggers words), is more important than salvation. Every year it gets worse. Why is it that when a group that I work with speaks to people in a tent thousands give their life to Christ and in church almost no one comes forward. We use no preaching, no music, no sermons, just the Bible and the Gospel. I cannot tell you the joy I see in these new believers’ eyes and voices. No one took the time to tell them the Gospel; they had heard a lot of sermons by a lot of people with a seminary degree, but no Gospel. We twice did this in two different churches parking lot and both times over 60 people gave their life to Christ…not one person from those two churches would come and work with us in the tent. At another time over three weekends, within a few miles of the biggest church in town, hundreds gave their life to Christ…mostly teenagers. We have done this for the past two years at this particular site and the count is now almost two thousand lost souls who have found a new life in Christ in a tent that cost hundreds next to a church that cost millions.

    Are you studying salvation or speaking salvation? Are you writing about salvation or are you helping others write their name in the Book of Life? Every believer, whether they are an academic or a lay person, will answer both of these questions on judgement day. Blessings and this is my last entry into this blog.

Written by Michael S. Heiser
theLAB