An Indictment Against the Word "Literal"

There is a word which, especially in regard to Biblical Studies and theology, is almost always misused. That word is "Literal." How often when I am in the presence of theological discussion I invariably hear phrases tossed around like, "Should we take this story literally?" "So do you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead?" "I take the Bible literally." I have a problem with this kind of language. The problem is that the word "literal" is a literary term meaning the author is using language in its plain meaning, rather than in a metaphorical sense. "Literal" or "literally" are terms that are confined exclusively to the world of the text. They have no bearing on reality, or what actually happened in space and time.

Allow me to provide an example. In one chapter of "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien describes how Gandalf kills the Balrog. One can say that Gandalf "literally" killed the Balrog. That is, the story of Gandalf's battle with the Balrog is not a metaphor in the story. Tolkien means the Balrog was really a Balrog and Gandalf really did kill it. However, this story can be literal without having actually happened within space and time in our dimension.

When the Biblical authors say Jesus healed a blind man and people ask if it literally happened, we should say, "Well, it's not a metaphor. The blind man and the miracle in the story is not representative of something else." However, I do realize what people are asking. They are asking a question not of literary genre or form, which is what the term "literal" in its correct sense should be limited to, but "Did this event the author records really happen in space and time." He or she is then asking a question about the world that exists behind the events recorded in the text, not a question of the text itself.

The terms we should be using in place of "literal" is "historically." One can believe in a "literal" resurrection of Christ in that he affirms the Gospels are describing Christ brought back to life without believing it was an event that occurred historically. As Christians we believe in both the literal and historical meaning of the text. We believe the gospel writers actually did mean the body of Christ was resurrected, and weren't trying to make some sort of abstract metaphor. We also believe in the historical meaning of the text in that if we were to hop into our time machines and travel back to that first Easter morning, we would be able to see and touch Christ.

This also goes for the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. This is perhaps where the word "literal" gets abused the most. It saddens me to see people asking whether the days of Genesis are literal or not. In Hebrew, whenever the word for day (yom) is coupled with a numerical value (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc), it means a day as people would understand it. So of course in the text the "day" literally means "day". Those words are not metaphors. Neither are the creation accounts metaphors for something else. However, the question we are to ask is "what kind of literature is being written? What is the author trying to say or argue?" It is at that point we can begin to textually examine them and deduce that the author is making arguments about how the universe is structured, who made it,a reason for the six day work week prescribed in the ten commandments, and man's relation to God and the world. We can then ask "what historically happened?" Did the events happen exactly according to the two accounts the author describes, or is he trying to show something else while using "days" as a narrative framework to portray reality? We can then begin to examine the universe, the product of creation, to attempt to make sense of it. (note: we must also realize here that if there is any science in these stories, it will reflect the understanding of the men of the time it was written. We should not expect it to contain modern, scientific insights, as that is not the purpose of the Bible.). However, by this time we have moved out of the realm of the text.

Let's remember, then, to keep our terms under control. Use the word "literal" when appropriate, and the word "historical" when appropriate. It will ultimately lead to greater and more accurate understanding of the text. This is the Word of God we are dealing with, and we should deal with it in the most accurate terms possible.