During the centuries preceding the Reformation, the
literal meaning of God's Word was ignored, as scholars sought to
impress each other with their ability to find hidden meanings. At that
time, theologians assumed that the Bible was a dark book and that each
statement had four meanings: a literal meaning, a figurative meaning,
an allegorical meaning, and a moral meaning. While that approach was
popular because it made it possible for church leaders to make the
Bible say what they wanted it to say, it totally confused theology and
obscured the Gospel. As a result, darkness reigned.
In calling God’s people back to the Bible, Martin
Luther emphasized the clarity of Scripture and the fact that the human
mind is dark, not the Word of God (Acts 17:27). Far from being dark,
Scripture is the only light that can be a “lamp” unto our feet, make
“wise the simple,” and dispel the darkness of the human heart (2Peter
1:19, Psalm 19:7 and 119:105). Furthermore, because the Bible is clear,
the message that God intends for you to get from it is nothing other
“than what ye read” (2Corinthians 1:13). In other words, because there
is no deceptive double-talk in the Bible, its words mean the same thing
that they would mean in ordinary conversation (2Corinthians 3:12).
Although the plain meaning of the words is, by
definition, the “literal” meaning, if you use that term in reference to
Scripture it is important to make it clear that you are talking about
the grammatical meaning of the words, not the surface meaning. Dr.
Robert Preus explained it this way:
In other words, because the literal meaning is the
grammatical meaning, you should not assume that every figure of speech
is a departure from the literal meaning. On the contrary, because words
are defined by their context, all of our common figures of speech have
a literal meaning. For example, when Jesus said of Herod, “Go ye and
tell that fox” the word “fox,” in that context, literally meant “crafty
person.” Once people lose sight of that fact, Satan is able to convince
them that the intended meaning is subjective. As a result, they either
wind up rejecting the grammatical meaning in favor of the surface
meaning, or find figures of speech where none were intended. In either
case, the result is confusion, and Scripture winds up being twisted to
fit a particular tradition.
Because the idea that the literal meaning is opposed
to the grammatical meaning is widely accepted, some reject the literal
meaning of scripture and deny key doctrines of the faith, while others
give Bible believers a bad name by confusing the surface meaning of the
words with the literal meaning. However, in both cases people are being
lead away from the intended meaning of God’s Word, to the detriment of
faith. Therefore, I want to take a brief look at Bible prophecy, and
explain why the literal meaning is far different from what people think
it is, and why it is perfectly reasonable.
Since much of the controversy surrounding Bible
prophecy centers around the meaning of various apocalyptic visions, let
me begin with the vision recorded in the eighth chapter of Daniel. In
that chapter, verses one through fifteen give us a literal description
of what Daniel saw, while verses twenty through twenty-six provide us
with a literal record of the what an angel said in explanation of what
Daniel saw. In both cases, the literal meaning is easy to
understand, and has nothing to do with the ridiculous ideas that people
sometimes try to pass off as the literal meaning.
In verse three we are told that Daniel saw a ram
with two horns, and in verse twenty Daniel is told that the horns
represent the kingdoms of Media and Persia. In verse five we are told
that Daniel saw a goat with one horn, and in verse twenty-one we are
told that the goat represents the king of Greece and the horn
represents the first king. Here again, there is nothing absurd about
the literal meaning, it is simply “what you read” nothing more
(2Corinthians 1:13).
What I have just said should make it clear that the
people who have brought so much ridicule to the Christian faith with
their absurd interpretations of Bible prophesy, are not taking what is
said literally at all. For example, I have just pointed out that the
Bible literally tells us that the horn on the goat in Daniel’s vision
represents a king, yet I have had someone insist that the “stars” cast
down by the horn were actual stars. That is stupidity, not literalism.
The literal meaning of verse ten, is that Daniel saw stars being cast
down in his vision, and the explanation that Daniel received makes it
clear that the stars represent the “mighty” (Verse 24).
Moving to the Book of Revelation, chapters four and
five give us a literal description of John’s vision of heaven. And, in
that vision, we are told that John saw Christ as “a lamb as it
had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes” (Revelation 5:6).
However, the very fact that Christ is represented symbolically as a
lamb, indicates that the rest of the vision is symbolic also.
Therefore, while it is absurd to deny that the vision is symbolic, that
symbolism has nothing to do with whether the written record is literal
or not. The written record gives us a literal description of what John
saw, and the literal meaning is simply “what you read” nothing more
(2Corinthians 1:13).
I hope that this essay has helped you to understand
the importance of the literal meaning, the role it had in restoring the
gospel to the church at the time of the Reformation, and why we need to
make it clear that the literal meaning is the natural grammatical
meaning of the words, not an artificial denial of all figures of
speech.