Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is one of the most important passages to Jews:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your foreheard, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Even today, some Orthodox Jews literally tie parchments containing these verses to their arms and their forehead while praying, and they have a special ceremony when these verses are placed on the gates of their homes.
But were these instructions meant to be taken literally? Well, at one level they probably were. These actions definately set the Jews apart from everyone else. They were a physical symbol of their devotion to God. However, I think that the physical symbol was only part of it. The spiritual meaning is far more important. My understanding of this passage is that our sole devotion to God, and love of God (vv. 4-5) should direct our actions ("bind them as a sign on your hand"), our thoughts ("fix them as an emblem on your forehead"), and rule in our households ("write them on the doorposts of your house and your dates").
While the purely literal interpretation of this passage might set the Jews apart, it totally misses the meaning of the physical signs. This passage can be interpreted literally, but one most interpret it both literally and spiritually to get the full meaning. Consequently, a view of Biblical interpretation that says that if a passage can be understood literally, it must be understood literally, seems to narrow and will in some circumstances obscure the real meaning of the passage.
Comments
It's very difficult to give a precise answer about when to take it literally and when not to. Just because you can understand it literally does not mean that you should. However, you need a good reason not to understand it literally - this principle is not there to allow us to escape those passages that we don't like!So, while it's difficult to answer your question directly, here's some examples of things you need to take into account when determining if a passage should be taken literally or not: - Is there another passage that would contradict this one if it were understood literally? - Does another passage shed light on this one so that a non-literal interpretation should be preferred? - Is the style of writing not meant to be taken literally? - Would the passage result in absurdity if it were taken literally (for example, Rev 1 says that Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth)? - Are figures of speech being used (for example, is it using an hyperbole)? - How would the original intended recipients have understood the passage?My point with this post was that if you just interpret literally unless it results in nonsense, then you run into difficulties because you end up causing the bible to contradict itself. By relaxing the definition slightly, but still leaving the burden of proof on a non-literal interpretation, those passages become much more coherant.
It's very difficult to give a precise answer about when to take it literally and when not to. Just because you can understand it literally does not mean that you should. However, you need a good reason not to understand it literally - this principle is not there to allow us to escape those passages that we don't like!So, while it's difficult to answer your question directly, here's some examples of things you need to take into account when determining if a passage should be taken literally or not: - Is there another passage that would contradict this one if it were understood literally? - Does another passage shed light on this one so that a non-literal interpretation should be preferred? - Is the style of writing not meant to be taken literally? - Would the passage result in absurdity if it were taken literally (for example, Rev 1 says that Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth)? - Are figures of speech being used (for example, is it using an hyperbole)? - How would the original intended recipients have understood the passage?My point with this post was that if you just interpret literally unless it results in nonsense, then you run into difficulties because you end up causing the bible to contradict itself. By relaxing the definition slightly, but still leaving the burden of proof on a non-literal interpretation, those passages become much more coherant.
Forgot to mention before, I have a series of articles on writing and leading bible studies, including biblical exegesis and exposition, which I intend to publish here shortly (once I have time to reformat them).