I would pose that much in the Bible was NOT written to be interpreted literally. The Bible is full of parables, metaphors, and symbolism that represent some deeper, hidden meaning. And I think theologians like to pick and choose which verses to interpret literally—and it’s usually to help give more credibility to their own theological slant.
Hey Sudsy,
I think part of the problem in looking in these areas is what we mean by the word "literal".
I think there are some who believe that to understand the Bible you have to read it in the simplest sense and take what it says as non-metaphorical to the greatest extent possible.
I don't believe that. As you mention the Bible is full of all different types of literature. Some if it is historical-narrative, some of it is poetry, some of it is prophesy, some of it is parables. So when I think of "literal" what I think it means is to understand the text the way it is intended to be understood by God, by the original writer and the original hearers.
A good example is this passage,
“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29
Taken in the most literal sense, the simplest without complications, that seems pretty clear. It's not what is meant in the context however. Jesus was using a speaking device called hyperbole, to make a point very strongly, by means of exageration. To take this passage and literally remove an eye to try and avoid sins of looking (like lust) would be a "literal" rendering but it would be dead wrong. Jesus was taking the logic of the Pharisees and taking it to it's logical extreme while noting that issues like this were really issues of the heart.
That's one of the problem too, I might add, with a lot of what systematic theology does. It pulls passages in single verses from around the Bible without taking into consideration the context of the original form. These then become units of thought, which are put together to draw conclusions.
Psalms in particular are often used to take superlative statements from poetry and then make them literal statement that are combined with thoughts elsewhere. It's subtle, but cumulatively it puts the power of interpretation into the hands of the one putting together a systematic theology to come to whatever conclusion they want to, based upon how they arrange things, what they emphasize and what they de-emphasize or ignore. It's the means by which some cults (I'm not saying all systematic theology leads to cults, I'm just using an extreme example) build their thoughts and doctrines and put them forwards, when no single passage teaches what they're saying.
This leads leads to what August is saying and I agree completely with him. Systematic theology is a tool. It's not an independent means of extracting truth. It requires a framework of Biblical theology as August says. I'd go one step further. I'd say it requires first and foremost a personal knowledge and relationship with Christ, to where He becomes the lens through which we examine and understand Scripture.
bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender