Why Interpret the Bible Literally?

The question of whether or not to interpret biblical prophecy literally seems at first glance to
be moot. After all, why should it be interpreted any other way? The reality though is that far
from a general acceptance in utilizing this method for interpreting biblical prophecy, more
and more, there is a desire to see prophecy in primarily symbolic terms. The major
argument provided in support of this is that since much of the prophetic terminology used in
the Bible is symbolic, then it stands to reason that the meaning should also be understood
symbolically.

THE PROBLEM: The problem with the view related to interpreting the text symbolically of
course, is that this particular method fails to understand the major premise of prophecy.
That is, all prophecy has literal meaning and if the student of the Bible is to determine that
meaning, then it also stands to reason that there can only be one meaning and that
meaning must be consistent throughout Scripture.

To arrive at an understanding of prophetic passages by seeing the symbolism used as

having but a general meaning (i.e. good vs. evil, with evil being defeated in the end), fails
to acknowledge that while prophecy certainly without question employs symbolic language,
the meaning is ultimately extremely specific and detailed.

If we understand prophecy in mainly symbolic terms, meant to provide us with a general

meaning, then meaning is largely determined by the way we see it. We become the
subjective source of interpretation. Gone is the appreciation that Scripture is fully inspired
by God, and that God has chosen to reveal Himself to man in many specific ways
throughout the centuries, with one such way providing insight into the future; whatever
future that happened to be from the vantage point of the human author of Scripture.

In this day and age, it is not uncommon to hear the stated viewpoint that nearly all
prophecy has been fulfilled in times past. Advocates of this position will say for instance that
the events of A.D. 70 fulfilled the Second Coming of Jesus in judgment against Israel. This
particular event, in which Rome trampled and overthrew Jerusalem, including the Temple,
signaled the "end of time" in a spiritual sense indicating God's clear break with Israel. Since
that time it is asserted, God has turned His attention to His Church and is no longer dealing
with Israel as a nation, nor will He do so in the future. The Israelite era is over, due to the
rejection by the Jewish nation of Jesus Christ as Messiah, and God began something new
shortly after Christ's death.

In order to arrive at this particular position, one must do a great deal of damage to the
literal meaning of the text. In fact, much of the text employed to support this particular
position must be allegorized, or spiritualized. Any meaning founded upon a literal approach
to Scripture should be cast aside, in favor of superimposing another meaning; one in which
the emphasis is often on spiritual generalities, rather than specifics.

Proponents of the allegorical view find it difficult to harmonize many aspects of Scripture.
For instance the facts of Acts 1:10-11 provides a narrative of Jesus ascending into the
clouds, while a number of disciples watched. As they continued to stare up into the clouds,
two angels brought the disciples back to earth by intentionally pointing them to the future
event where Christ would return in the exact same way. These very thoughts are also
echoed in Christ's own words in the Olivet Discourse, when He provided the one sign that
would signal His return (Matthew 24:30). It is difficult to view these passages as anything
but literal, given the stark reality that Christ Himself and the two angels treated them as
literal and not in the least allegorical in meaning. Yet, in spite of this and other clear
passages in Scripture, the push is on from certain circles to view prophecy in literal terms.

Certainly, one of the things that has hurt prophetic discourse is the emphasis some have
placed on a time line. For instance, it has not been uncommon for numerous individuals in
times past to state without equivocation that Christ would return on such and such a date.
When that date came and went, another was offered in its place. This is in spite of the fact
that Christ Himself told us that no one besides the Father knows the day or hour (Matthew
24:36), yet apparently that hasn't stopped folks from deciding that they know when His
return will occur. The only thing worse than that are all the people who believe it.

Sensationalism has played and likely will continue to play, a major role in deadening
people's ears to the veracity of prophetic Scripture. Unfortunately, Satan has had a field day
here, prompting some well-intentioned (and not so well-intentioned) individuals to see a
sign in every newspaper article. This is certainly not what God had in mind when He spoke
of prophetic events either through prophets, apostles, or His Son. He intended for us to
understand His Word, not apply arbitrary allegorization in order to somehow make the
pieces fit.

Nonetheless, allegory tends to reign supreme on the prophetic landscape and it is certainly
not uncommon to read articles written from that perspective, by folks who are essentially
naysayers, when it comes to the literality of prophetic Scripture. "Don't worry," they'll say.
"Nothing's going to happen because nearly all of the book of Revelation was fulfilled way
back in A.D. 70." I'm anything but convinced that they're right. If they are, that's certainly
wonderful because the Great Tribulation has already taken place then. However, the more I
study prophecy, the more I cannot help but see a far more ominous picture provided by
God's Word.

VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS: The beginnings of the use of the Allegorical method of

interpretation ultimately began with Origen, who is among the earliest of church fathers
(A.D. 185-254). Theologian Paul Lee Tan says that he "probably deserves the title 'Mr.
Allegorism.' Origen so popularized the allegorical method that, in the eyes of church
historians, he has become allegorization personified."1 Origen's understanding of Scripture
involved a three-fold interpretation. The more one studies Origen's beliefs and the results of
those beliefs, the more questionable they appear, but because of this rendering he is known
as the foundation of today's allegorical interpretation.

When approaching Scripture, the responsibility of the interpreter is to determine just exactly
what God has meant by what He states in His Word. This cannot be done by following a
loosely knit path of allegorical interpretation which provides any number of interpretative
results; much of it left up to the subjective conclusions of the interpreter. With respect to
the allegorical interpretation, the absence of any checks and balances becomes obvious.

How can it logically be asserted that while God has obviously been literal throughout His
Word, upon arriving at those passages dealing with prophecy, God switches gears, moving
into the completely allegorical and leaving the meaning up for grabs? How could God
possibly take the time to provide specifics after specifics after specifics in all of His Word,
yet in those areas where He deals with prophecy, He literally waters it down by generalizing
it into spiritual oblivion? Obviously, this cannot be the case.

If for instance we consider the book of Daniel, we see prophetic detail revealed in such
marvelous detail that many critics of God's Word have offered their 'considered' opinion that
the book of Daniel was written well after the fact by an impostor, but written to look as if it
had written before all the events highlighted within its pages! In the book of Daniel, we see
a future history of the world before it happens, from Daniel's vantage point. God reveals to
Daniel and ultimately to Nebuchadnezzar, the course of events that would take place
starting with Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom as well as into the future, five kingdoms
later!

History has shown that these prophetic truths which occupy the pages of Daniel were
extremely accurate. We observe that the Medo-Persian Empire existed after Babylon, which
was then followed by the Hellenistic Empire, led by Alexander the Great of Greece, which
was then followed by the Great Roman Empire during the time of Christ. Human history will
eventually culminate in the final and fifth empire to be led by the Antichrist, which will be
Satan's last ditch effort to wrest his sealed and doomed future from the hands of God
Almighty.

Since it is obvious that the truth of history is found within the pages of Daniel long before
that history occurred, how can it possibly be conceivable to believe (as many do), that this
is an exception to the rule? In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, many simply refuse
to believe that what is recorded in Daniel is mirrored in (then future) history, preferring
instead to understand Daniel in spiritual generalities, to their own shame and chagrin.

THE ONLY VIABLE SOLUTION: It seems fair and certainly honest to understand God's
Word in the way He has meant us to understand it. Far from being an exception to the rule,
prophetic events are to be taken as literally as the rest of His precious Word. To affix a
meaning to it that is ultimately more palatable to the interpreter, yet stands in direct
opposition to the actual meaning is to invite God's judgment. It is to risk being on the
receiving end of His wrath for deigning to tamper with and denying the truth of His
Scripture. While this certainly may appeal to the masses of today, it is far more important
to understand God's Word in the truth in which He revealed it in order that we might stand
with Him, even if the entire world stands against us!

The true meaning of Scripture can only be gained by employing an approach that seeks to
harmonize all of God's Word with itself. In order for this to be accomplished, a systematic
interpretive approach must be used. Due to its consistency, there is no better method than
the method that understands the Bible (including prophecy) in literal terms. It is the literal
method that provides the means by which the interpreter comes away from Scripture with a
consistency that far surpasses any other interpretive method.

Certainly the literal approach is not without its critics, yet it can be easily shown that those
who criticize this approach do so because their chief failure is simply not understanding
what is meant by the term "literal."

WHAT DOES TAKING THE TEXT 'LITERALLY' REALLY MEAN? In stating that the Word
of God should be interpreted literally, what is really meant by this is that we should
endeavor to determine God's literal meaning. This is not at all difficult in reality, since we do
this on a daily basis in normal conversation with others. When we discuss things with
others, we do so because we speak a common language. It would be difficult at best to
understand what someone was saying if both the speaker and the hearer did not speak the
same language, or knew the language of the other. At that point, some type of sign
language would inevitably enter the picture, with a good deal of gesticulation, pointing and
the like in the hopes of determining meaning.
Let us assume though that we are speaking with and listening to someone who speaks the
same language that we speak. Moreover, let us also assume that this other individual is part
of our culture. In other words, both individuals were born in and grew up in the same
neighborhood of rural New York State. Both individuals would be well versed in the attitude
and understanding of those who live in a rural area, complete with dairy farms and all that
goes with that. They would understand the four seasons, noting the differences between
fall, winter, spring and summer. For these two individuals to have a conversation would not
require anything additional. They not only share the same language, but they share the
same culture by having grown up together in the same area. If during the course of
conversation something is unclear, it would simply be a matter of asking the other for
additional meaning to ascertain a clear understanding of what the other person meant.

All this is to say that we take for granted language and the terms, ideas and phrases that
folks use when discussing topics with another person. We don't really think about it because
there is usually so much common ground upon which we have built that the understanding
of one another is simply second nature.

Now imagine trying to converse with someone who is new to your language. Instantly
everything changes. The nuances of language become much more pronounced and
therefore noticeable. Because of this, the ability to understand one another is often much
more difficult. Why? Aside from the fact that the languages are not the same, the cultural
differences begin to come to the fore as well. This is seen in the way words are used and
expressions are understood. It is not uncommon for different languages and/or cultures to
have the same or similar expressions. What is uncommon is for those expressions to have
the same meaning from one language/culture to the next. Often these expressions have
nothing in common.

THE BIBLE AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: So it is with the Bible. To most of us, it is like
learning a completely different language. Most Christians who read the Bible are not Jewish
and have no background in Judaism. We are not aware of the many Jewish idioms that
make up a large portion of the Bible. We simply do not know what they mean, and in fact,
are not often aware that they are idioms at all. Because of this, we will simply take the
words as we understand them because of the way those phrases and/or words are used in
our language. This may often lead to frustration in the interpretative process, leading the
interpreter to conclude that the meaning must be found in allegory. This of course does a
major disservice to the text. The message of the text under this scenario is not accurate
because it is not appropriately based on literal meaning. As in the study of any foreign
language, it becomes imperative to learn the meaning of phrases, idioms and general
vernacular of the biblical text in its originally written intention, not what it means to us in
our culture.

But someone might argue "how can anyone take some of the words or phrases literally in
the Bible when it would appear that they are figures of speech?" It is a fair question with a
fairly straightforward answer.

If I was with a friend in a restaurant and someone overheard me say "I am so hungry that I
could eat a cow!" it is doubtful that the individual who overheard me would think that I was
going to literally eat a cow. In fact, this type of hyperbole or overstatement is made in
speech to make a point. Instead of stating "I am extremely hungry," the statement is made
by simply employing a figure of speech. No one who is familiar with the language I speak,
including the idioms that are built into it would think for a moment that I was planning on
eating an entire bovine. They would simply have understood me to say that I was very
hungry.

If I said to my friend that I was really tired after my long day at work and was planning on
going home to "hit the hay," "retire," or "hit the sack," my friend would merely understand
me to say that I was going to go home and go to bed. There is nothing unusual about using
figures of speech like this and in fact, we use them all the time, simply accepting them for
what they are and what they mean. It makes conversation more interesting and as long as
the people involved in the conversing understand those particular figures of speech as they
are meant to be understood, then there is little chance of misinterpreting the other. The
problem comes in when someone uses a figure of speech that is not known to the other
individual. At that point, the person may have to stop and ask for meaning. Once that's
given, the conversation picks up where it left off.

In each of the above examples given, it is clear that both the speaker and the listener
understand one another in a very literal sense in spite of the fact that figures of speech are
used. Because the figure of speech is not taken literally but the meaning is, it is clear that
the individuals understand one another literally.

With respect to the Bible, people often grow critical of those of us who take Scripture
literally. It is stated that because we do not understand every word literally, we are
obviously not true literalists. This is a ridiculous argument, yet it is presented as if it is
point, set and match.

Scripture should be approached the same way anyone would approach any language; from
a standpoint of literal meaning. It is this literalism that provides the interpreter the means
by which he will come to a consistent interpretation over and over again, wherever he finds
himself in Scripture. It is because of this, that it cannot be understated that the proper
study of Scripture will often require a great deal of work. Scripture cannot be approached
superficially any more than one can approach a foreign language superficially and expect to
gain a thorough knowledge of it.

Because language has changed so much over the centuries and from one language to
another, it is imperative that the student of the Bible spend time determining what the
words and phrases meant during the time in which they were first written down. This will
involve determining meanings of phrases that were used then and which are undoubtedly
completely different in meaning today (if in fact, they are even used today). This is not
unreasonable and for the serious Bible student, this depth in research should be the
common approach utilized to gain the true meaning of the text, not the meaning which the
interpreter thinks it means because they may have heard those expressions before and
maybe even used them.

While growing up, phrases like far out, far out and solid, right on, cool, and a plethora of
others were commonly heard. Most of these idioms are not in use today and if they are,
they usually mean something completely different than they once did. This is not
uncommon and it is never viewed as if something strange has taken place with language.
Society has grown to expect language to change and to adapt to the culture. Because of
this, when it concerns the Bible, this same principle is applied by most; that Scripture
should be understood in today's terms and vernacular, rather than the time in which it was
written. This is simply absurd. I can think of no other work of antiquity where the text is
expected to adapt to today's meaning. Does one do this with a work of Shakespeare? Of
course not. The idea is to find out what Shakespeare meant when he wrote what he wrote.
No one would take Hamlet and apply meaning to it based on today's language. Why is this
done with Scripture?

The allegorical method is often the favored means of interpretation because it takes far less
work and effort to arrive at a conclusion. However the only question is, which method - the
literal or allegorical - arrives at the correct interpretation?

According to Tan, "A four-fold reason exists for the literal interpretation of prophecy:
(1) Scriptural authority,
(2) Historical fulfillment,
(3) Early church precedent, and
(4) Logical necessity."2 These reasons are absolutely valid. There is no concrete reason to
not take the prophetic portions of Scripture literally.

It is obvious that Christ routinely took Scripture at face value. He assumed the veracity of
the text. It is also obvious that often when Christ referred to something that would have
been historical for Him (as with Daniel), He took the text without question as being what it
stated. He did not apply a non-literal meaning to the text, but understood the text as God,
the Father obviously intended.

According to Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, concerning the rules of interpreting Scripture he

says "all biblical passages are to be taken exactly as they read unless there is something in
the text indicating that it should be taken some other way than literally."3 He then goes on
to state "As in any language, literal or normal interpretation does not rule out figures of
speech, but even these have a literal background."4

Charles C. Ryrie indicates that Dispensationalism stems from a literal interpretation of

Scripture and his definition is similar to Fruchtenbaum's when he states "This means
interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage,
whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking."5

How we view God will often relate to how we view and interpret His Word. For instance, if
we see God as willing to stoop in order that He might reveal Himself to man in written form,
then it is likely that we will also see this written form as something that God wants us to
understand. It becomes completely illogical and hence absurd, to believe on one hand that
God has chosen to reveal Himself to us through epistles, poems or narratives written by
man, yet when we delve into areas where God is telling us what He is going to do, we are to
believe that this same God has deliberately shut the door of understanding on us, so that it
becomes impossible to know with certainty what He is saying to us! In essence, this is what
the allegorical method creates because of its lack of checks and balances.

The whole thing becomes bizarre to say the least, especially when one considers the fact
that without God first approaching man, man would have no desire to turn and approach
God. Does it make sense then that God would include prophecy in His Word to mankind,
which at times appears to be so complex that the only possible way of understanding it is to
see it in allegorical terms? If that is the case, then God has spent a good deal of wasted
time creating passages of Scripture which are essentially devoid of specifics and meant only
to be understood superficially, with the final meaning left up to the subjective whims of the
interpreter.

Milton S. Terry comments "We cannot believe that the sacred writers desired to be
misunderstood. They did not write with a purpose to confuse and mislead their readers. Nor
is it reasonable to suppose that the Scripture, given by divine inspiration, is of the nature of
a puzzle designed to exercise the ingenuity of critics. It was given to make men wise unto
salvation, and in great part it is so direct and simple in its teachings that a little child can
understand its meaning."6

Terry continues with, "it will be noticed at once that [the allegorical interpretation] is to
disregard the common signification of words, and give wing to all manner of fanciful
speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language, but foists
into it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As a system therefore, it
puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and laws."7 Interestingly enough, it cannot be
stated clearly enough that when symbolism is used in the Bible, in almost all cases, the
symbol is either explained in that text, or somewhere else in the Bible. This is one of the
biggest reasons in favor of taking the Bible literally. God has provided the text, which is
some cases includes symbolism, but then He has provided the definition of the symbol as
well. Those who allegorized Scripture simply fail to recognize this and often provide
meaning to symbols which contradict God's own meaning. To whom should we listen?

PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO CHRISTIAN LIFE: It behooves each Christian to approach

God's Word in humility and in all seriousness, noting that His Word is eternal and alive.
God's Word does not need us, but we most certainly need it and to desire its fruit is to seek
its true meaning; the meaning which God has intended should be taken from it. When all is
said and done though, some may ask why it matters at all what the interpretation is
concerning prophecy? After all, is not God in control and will not all things will work out
according to His plan? The obvious answer to that is that all things will work out according
to His plan. However, a better question would be one that determines the reason(s) why His
children should be concerned with prophecy at all. Regardless of how prophecy will work
itself out, there are any number of practical reasons for the believer to study and to
correctly understand prophecy as it relates to God's plan for the future. Without going into
all of the many reasons why studying prophecy is beneficial, suffice it to say that three are
extremely important. It behooves each believer to understand and know that studying
prophecy is a worthwhile endeavor and bears spiritual fruit.

Studying prophecy validates Scripture. There is no greater reward than coming to the
firm conviction that God's Word is true. If an individual takes the time to study the
prophecies concerning Jesus alone, and the resultant fulfilling of them by Him, that very fact
will increase one's faith in God's Word. The enemy of our souls knows this of course and
because of it, his desire is to keep us as far away from God's Word as possible. If he is
unable to do that, then he will work diligently to keep us uninterested in prophetic areas of
Scripture because he knows that the truth found within those areas will serve to bolster our
faith in God. Because of many hundreds and hundreds of biblical prophecies have been
fulfilled over time, one cannot help but to develop a very healthy attitude and outlook where
God's Word is concerned.

Secondly, studying prophecy promotes evangelism by creating urgency in the

Christian's life to witness to the lost. If we know that all of prophecy does a great deal more
than simply point out the galactic struggle between good and evil with evil winning in the
end, then life itself takes on much more intensity when it comes to witnessing. Since the
future is always before us with the realization that the climax of all things is just around the
corner, then what better motivator can there possibly be to bring the good news of salvation
in Jesus Christ to the masses? Again, we can look to Jesus here because of how many
prophecies He fulfilled. We can often use these areas of prophecy as a place to introduce
others to salvation. A sense of urgency, coupled with a right understanding of just how
Christ fulfilled many prophecies recorded in Scripture are often the best two tools to use in
evangelizing the lost.

Thirdly, prophecy should purify the life of the believer. As we gain more understanding
of just where things are headed and that this life is not an end in itself, but a means to a
glorious new beginning, the believer's life and mind should become more and more purified.
Paul spoke of this frequently in his letters to Titus or to the Thessalonians. His comments
telling Titus to be "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (rapture) of
the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:3) for instance applies to all Christians,
not just Titus. Prophecy and prophecy alone helps the Christian discern the difference
between what is eternally important and what is not. Focusing on what God is doing is a
sure way to lose interest in the many things in this life that vie for our attention, but have
no eternal value associated with them.

Finally, prophecy reveals God's absolute sovereignty. Without equivocation, prophecy

declares that God is in control. Prophecy places God center stage and puts all human effort
and ingenuity, along with Satan's far behind. Nothing shall stand against God or His
purposes and His prophetic calendar, whether it was dealing with the life of Christ in His
first advent, or His return in His yet future second advent. God is Supreme; the Creator and
Sustainer of life and all that it entails. He has allowed us the privilege of viewing much of
His history even before it has occurred, declaring with finality that no purpose brought
against Him shall gain the victory. May He open the eyes of those who for whatever reason
are unable to see the truth of His prophetic Word the way He has revealed it. End Notes:

• 1. Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, (Dallas: Bible Communications,

Inc., 1974), 49
• 2. Ibid, 59
• 3. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah, (San Antonio: Ariel
Press, 1982), 4
• 4. Ibid, 4
• 5. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 91
• 6. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1974), 161 7. Ibid, 16