I actually think that most of us read the Bible the way I'm talking about.
Let's take an example.
Matthew 16:5-12
5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Did this really happen?
Jesus had a conversation with His disciples. They talked about bread and leaven and religious leaders.
Jesus told them to beware the leaven of the Pharisess. They took Him as meaning bread, they forgot to bring bread.
Now, you may say, but look! Jesus is chiding them for being too literal!
Jesus is not chiding them for being literal, but rather for not recognizing what He was talking about. Then He gave them the reasons by which they could know that there was a different meaning, and what that meaning was.
Now. Is this to say that we should not look literally? I think this is to say we should carefully. The disciples didn't listen closely. Jesus was talking about leaven, but He was also talking about the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees. The disciples apparently grabbed ahold of the one word, "leaven", without giving proper regard to the fulness of what Jesus said. They associated "leaven" with what they commonly thought of - bread. But that's like "interpretation by word association". Jesus says Leaven, we think Bread, and stop hearing what else He says.
But it's not the leaven of bread, but the leaven of the Pharisees. Now. Leaven has a pattern of symbolic use in the Bible, along with passages that tell us how it is used, specifically in this instance that it represents their teaching.
So when we look at this passage, we see an example of the disciples coming to an "overly literal" interpretation, except, that's not really it. What they are really doing is drawing conclusions based on a part taken out of context.
The reality is that they only regarded part of what Jesus had said, not the entire statement.
And when we look at the entire passage, it literally tells us that this leaven is symbolic. We likewise find Jesus literally saying that the meaning of this symbol is the doctine of those religious leaders.
There really were Saducees and Pharisees, they really did have bad teaching, and Jesus was literally warning them about it.
We come to symbolic language, but we know it is so because the text tells us, in direct literal language. We know what the symbols mean because the text tells us, again, in direct literal language.
And so we can conclusively say that this wording is symbolic, because the text tells us that in a literal straightforward fashion.
Another example . . .
Revelation 12:1-3
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Where the KJV translates "wonder", the word used is "semeion", which, if you look at it's pattern of usage in the Bible, this is something special, something unusual, meant to communicate or authenticate. Liddell-Scott-Jones defines this word as a "mark by which a thing is known", "sign from the gods, omen", "sign or signal to do a thing, made by flags", it goes on.
If I look at word definitions, this is a sign. If I look at Biblical usage, this is again a sign, and I can point to places in the Bible that show this usage.
"No sign shall be given by the sign of Jonah."
"You can't read the signs of the times"
" . . . and asked Him to show them a sign from heaven."
"signs and wonders"
and so on.
So John saw a great sign in heaven, a woman . . .
So we know that this woman is not meant to be understood that John looked up in the sky and just saw a girl. No, this was a special seeing of something that was a sign, a mark or token or sign meant to express something.
How is it that we would be able to know what is being expressed?
And by what means might we all come to the same understanding of these passages? How can we know we've got it right?
Much love!
Mark
