Opinion: A pop quiz for biblical literalists

God's standards have not changed. But God did put Israel under these laws that reflected his holy character. He executed judgment through these laws.

Such judgment from God does not change. It's just that since the coming of Christ, the judgment is not being executed in the same fashion and/or will be excecuted in the future.

This is not a matter of taking something literally but rather it is about taking something in (or out of) context. These laws were given to Israel, not to Christians. So this does nothing to make taking literal passages as literal wrong.

People who attack the idea of taking the Bible literally such as the author of the article in the OP usually don't even know what that means.

 

I believe that article characterizes what many do today in the church when they are confronted with difficult passages or passages that do not seem to fit what they have been told.

Seldom have I found that after studying some of the seemingly difficult passages in light of their historical context that the correct interpretation is on one side of the other side of the fence but something different.

For example the issue of men and women deacons is not at all the issue of no women deacons and only men deacons but rather historically their roles in the church were clearly defined. Yet I have found few pastors who have even studied the issue that well to know the role of men and women deacons in the early church. In talking with pastors and showing them the sources of my information I have seen what happens to them. They have the correct information but are afraid to say anything and continue to align themselves with the political machine. Then when I have asked what they are going to do to make change in their church, so often the answer is in alignment with nothing. In essence they quickly became afraid. They waned their jobs more than God and His truth.

 

I agree with you in many ways. However a lot of those sitting in churches today throw stones at others by claiming "the Bible says" without ever giving consideration to its historical context. They are quick to follow what the Bible "says" rather than what it actually teaches. Too often those preachers who tell their congregations to take the Bible literally continually pound that idea into the minds of the people and fail to address the historical context of the passages. In effect it teaches the congregation a one size fits all way of interpreting scripture rather than teaching them to interpret scripture in light of its historical context.

When I first started pastoring it was shocking to me how many older pastors told me not to preach the difficult passages I encountered. I was determined to teach the Bible and preach entire books. Yet when I asked older preachers about how they would preach particular passages they told me to skip them. When I told them that I could not do that because I was preaching verse by verse they still told me to skip those passages.

 

Correct Marcia. A true literalist knows how to study the Bible. He or she knows that not every word is taken "literally" but context, historical study, and grammatical considerations are observed to arrive at a literal understanding of the text. (Of course the Holy Spirit illumines and aids as well)

Of course there are allegories, metaphors and the like in the Scriptures. But when studied within the framework of a historical and grammatical hermeneutic, one will naturally arrive at a literal understanding of the text.

As you said, those who attack the idea of taking the Bible literally usually don't know what it means. I would add that some do know what it means but are purposefully malicious towards the Scriptures and deliberately ignore what they know to be true.