Reading this morning about Tertullian, who has a slightly different take on the literal/figurative debate.
He does believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible, as far as I can tell. He opposes the movement already active in his own time (c.200AD) to read important parts of the Bible as only figurative.
Still he thinks that the important reading of each episode is as a figurative foreshadowing of a later, more spiritual message. He says "carnal things come first as a figure of spiritual things."
He gives the example of Moses not being able to enter the Holy Land himself, sending Joshua to complete the journey. Tertullian assumes this is a true historical event. He also says that it is significant to us because it is a "figure" of how the Mosaic law, while it was important for one step in history, is not sufficient to take a person all the way to Heaven. Jesus (who has the same name as Joshua) is required to complete the final step which Moses began.
So that's interesting to me how literal/figurative is not mutually exclusive, and even strict literalists can give more weight to the figurative.
Obviously there are many later Christians, especially in the more mystical traditions, who don't care about the literal part as Tertullian does. Some say they don't even care if Moses was a real historical personage -- that the role of the character is as a type or figure pointing to a spiritual truth.
He does believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible, as far as I can tell. He opposes the movement already active in his own time (c.200AD) to read important parts of the Bible as only figurative.
Still he thinks that the important reading of each episode is as a figurative foreshadowing of a later, more spiritual message. He says "carnal things come first as a figure of spiritual things."
He gives the example of Moses not being able to enter the Holy Land himself, sending Joshua to complete the journey. Tertullian assumes this is a true historical event. He also says that it is significant to us because it is a "figure" of how the Mosaic law, while it was important for one step in history, is not sufficient to take a person all the way to Heaven. Jesus (who has the same name as Joshua) is required to complete the final step which Moses began.
So that's interesting to me how literal/figurative is not mutually exclusive, and even strict literalists can give more weight to the figurative.
Obviously there are many later Christians, especially in the more mystical traditions, who don't care about the literal part as Tertullian does. Some say they don't even care if Moses was a real historical personage -- that the role of the character is as a type or figure pointing to a spiritual truth.
