Literal vs. Symbolic: a False Dichotomy

Should we interpret the entire Bible literally, or are certain parts (or is all of it, for that matter) merely symbolic[1]? In this post, I would like to explain why I think this question, which has caused schisms within Christianity since time immemorial, is misguided, and indeed, misleading. The central argument is that, when we are dealing with the collision of natural and supernatural, physical and spiritual, human and divine – which, to my mind, is the essence of the entire Bible – it makes little sense to talk about whether a given passage is intended to be ‘literal’ or ‘symbolic’. In such a context, this is a false dichotomy, since symbols and the like are the most literal descriptors of reality available to us in human language and human understanding; and conversely, the literal world symbolically reflects the spiritual.

The Bible starts with the creation of the universe, and that seems like a perfect topic with which to open this post. One of the most asinine debates in theology, in my opinion, is whether the seven days of creation consisted of a ‘literal’ seven days. Those who answer in the negative point out that the first chapter of Genesis is patently structured as a poem, and should be read accordingly – that is, figuratively. Those who answer in the affirmative exclaim that the Bible says seven days, so it must be seven actual days, and to say otherwise is tantamount to altering the Bible. I agree – with both sides.

How can I maintain such a position, you ask? Well, to answer that question, I would pose a question of my own: do you realise that there is no such thing as a ‘literal’ day, at least in the sense that most people conceive it[2]? Despite what our intuition and experiences would suggest, time itself is relative[3]. This cosmological fact, discovered by Einstein himself[4], is a favourite topic of science fiction; in the recent movie Interstellar, for example, a ‘day’ for the astronauts exploring distant galaxies is equivalent to years for people on earth. Does this sound familiar? It should if you are at all familiar with the theological debate in question, for those advocating a non-literal seven days often invoke 2 Peter 3:8, which reads, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. Now, this verse is clearly indicating that God is not subject to physical time; but what’s interesting is that, since God is everywhere in the universe at once, it is valid even when discussing physical time. Fact and fiction, physical and spiritual, literal and symbolic, cannot be so easily separated.

And how could it be any other way? After all, we are dealing with the creation of the physical by the spiritual. How could you describe such an event more accurately – more literally – than with poetry? It’s impossible to explain scientifically, since matter itself – the subject of science – is being created; indeed, innumerable scientific laws are being broken, because they are themselves coming into existence! In any case, whether or not the seven days of creation consisted of a 'literal' seven days is completely besides the point, which is that God has established the seven-day period as a divine pattern, built in to the very fabric of life. Seven is the Biblical number of completeness and perfection, repeated throughout the scriptures, particularly in Revelation. Of course, we know that the Sabbath was ordained in accordance with this pattern (Exodus 20:11), which, like everything else, Jesus redeems for us (Hebrews 3:7-4:13).

This point can be generalised – haven’t you found that artists are often capable of capturing some deep truth more precisely than could be done using ‘literal’ language (I am loath to use terms such as ‘logical’, ‘scientific’, ‘rational’, or ‘factual’ here, since my point is precisely that seemingly non-literal imagery can contain precisely those qualities)? The Bible is full of such truths, since it is essentially a story about Heaven on Earth. Indeed, at the time of creation, there was no separation between worldly and divine, since everything was good; it was only with the Fall that such a separation came into being, and it is only the context of such separation that the literal-vs-symbolic dichotomy makes any sense. The remainder of the Bible, moreover, tells of how this separation has been, is being, and will be eradicated.

To insist on an earthly interpretation is not, therefore, to remain loyal to scripture, as proponents of this view claim; on the contrary, it is to detract from the mind-blowing, fundamental, heavenly nature of the subject matter in question. At the same time, however, those who take a postmodern approach to the Bible are completely missing the point, and are likewise devaluing the power of God. Every word of the Bible is true (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21), and is so in the most absolute sense (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:22-25); in other words, there is such a thing as an incorrect interpretation, and for that matter, a false teaching.

Here we reach the crux of the argument, which both sides of the literal-symbolic divide miss: just because something is symbolic (be it in the form of image, allegory, or whatever) does not make it any less true, or even less literal; on the contrary, heavenly truths are most literally explained using such symbolism – at least within the confines of our understanding and language. Indeed, I think this is what the Apostle Paul is getting at when he speaks of “the Spirit himself interced[ing] for us with groanings too deep for words” (Romans 8:26), for, as he (Paul or the Spirit, take your pick) puts it elsewhere, “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). The redeemed spirit within us testifies to a heavenly reality, which we cannot however fully comprehend or express. Indeed, Paul picks up on this same theme earlier in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 2), when he speaks of the “interpreting” and “imparting” the “spiritual truths” that have been “revealed to us” – that is, the “secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the age” – using “words not taught by human wisdom”.

Furthermore, while I have thus far argued that the symbolic can be literal, it is also the case that the literal can be symbolic, for precisely the same reasons. Take the Temple, for example, which contained the Presence of God on Earth. It was designed according to rigorous specifications; and yet we learn in various places (Ezekiel 40-48; Zechariah 2; Revelation 21-22) that these physical specifications reflect those of the Heavenly Temple. As it says in Revelation 21:17, the "human measurement [of the Temple]...is also also an angel's measurement". Similar points could be made with regard to many of the Bible's prophecies. Whenever Heaven and Earth collide, the distinction between literal and symbolic fades.

I think that the treatment of scripture suggested here would help us to reconcile apparent paradoxes in the Bible – not in the sense of ‘resolving’ them, but rather in acknowledging them as potent forms of symbolic meaning. Indeed, the aforementioned chapter in Romans describes precisely such a paradox, whereby the redemption of creation is simultaneously complete in Christ’s sacrifice and incomplete until His Second Coming. This is not a contradiction, since it can be rationalised; but it is a paradox, and indeed, it is the paradoxical aspect that provides the rationalisation. The chapter is essentially indicating that Heaven and Earth have not yet been (re-)married; they are engaged, to be sure, but the Bride has not yet been presented to the Bridegroom, and the two will not be made one until the wedding is consummated. As it says in Revelation 22 – the very chapter that sternly warns against adding or taking away from the Word of God – that day is coming soon. And on that day, when the separation between worldly and divine is forever abolished, the 'literalness' of symbolic interpretations will surely be made manifest.

Notes:

[1] I choose the term ‘symbolic’ over ‘metaphorical’, because the former generally denotes a stand-in for a more complex or abstract reality while the latter generally denotes a comparison of two discrete objects, and it is the former denotation that I think is apposite.

[2] I am no physicist; please excuse this layman’s version of cosmology, and please excuse any errors.

[3] A creation literalist might retort that the Bible was obviously referring to an ‘earth day’; but such a period of time is defined as a full rotation of the earth, the latter of which – along with the rest of the universe – was still in the process of being creation. It makes no sense to speak of ‘twenty-four hours’ when the very universe by which such hours are defined did not yet exist.

[4] I actually find it interesting that the first thing God created was light, which is precisely what Einstein treated as an absolute.