What is biblical literalism?

Dispensationalism is often associated with a ‘literal’ interpretation of Scripture, by which is meant, not that every word in the Bible is applied in an absolutely literal manner without reference to its context, but that words, verses and passages are given their natural meaning based on their immediate context as well as their wider context, which extends to the Scriptures as a whole. This is also referred to as the ‘historical-grammatical’ method. Among other things, this approach recognises that symbolical prophecies are interpreted according to the meaning of the metaphors used.

Our first rule must be that the Scriptures shall be our only standard of appeal, and these taken in their plain, literal meaning, without perverting or mystifying their evident signification.

Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency -- the strength of dispensational interpretation -- that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.[44] To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.

"The importance of interpreting prophecy literally, and not figuratively, is strongly shown in this verse. The system of interpretation which unhappily prevails among many Christians--I mean the system of spiritualizing away all the plain statements of the prophets, and accommodating them to the Church of Christ-- can never be reconciled with such a verse as this. The plain, literal meaning of words should evidently be the meaning placed on all the statements of Old Testament prophecy. This remark of course does not apply to symbolical prophecies, such as those of the seals, trumpets, and vials in Revelation."

It is consequently oftentimes accurate to say such and such a thing is a figure, simile, or illustration, where it would not be safe to call it a type or symbol. It is well to be careful in such matters; but we may be sure there is a "via media" of truth lying somewhere between the extremes of mysticism and hard literalism. If God uses figures, He wishes to teach us something by them. We should consider them attentively and reverently, desiring to discover what His meaning is. This meaning generally consists of some broad primal truth connected with the most striking features of each figure; and then subordinate features of more or less interest will be found to reveal themselves as details are examined.

On the nature of the evidence to be expected we need not dwell. It is freely granted that there may be a literality in interpreting no less spurious than the so-called spiritualizing. We have to weigh on the one hand whether the form be simple or symbolic; but we have to discern on the other whether a particular part belong to the vision or its divinely given interpretation, bearing in mind the fundamental fallacy of expecting no more from the words of God than from the writings of any man as such. Whatever is conveyed in a specially mysterious form should be weighed proportionately. The least change in scripture intimates an adequate design on God's part.

The adherence to a literal interpretation is necessarily absurd where the language of the book is beyond doubt figurative or symbolic. Now of all books of scripture, certainly in the New Testament, none so abounds in symbols as the Revelation. To insist upon a rigid literalism here must end in continual straining, disappointment, and error.

If "G.H.L." were to send his statement of evidence as to the seventy weeks of Daniel, the Editor might be enabled to form a better judgement whether its publication would tend to profit. But he cannot for a moment allow that to deny symbols in the prophecies is a help to understanding them. In his opinion, it is as erroneous as the opposite theory, which denies any part to be literal. The truth is, that in almost all the prophets there is a mixture of figures with ordinary language; which to a really simple mind, occasions no insurmountable difficulty. The source of mistake as to Scripture lies in the truths communicated, far more than in the words which convey them. Again, he thinks that it is puerile to gainsay the fact that symbols are the rule, the language of every day the exception, in a large part of Daniel and the Revelation. None have done more harm than men like Tyso, who, overlooking this in their zeal for letter, have propounded the grossest absurdities (e.g., that the locusts of Rev. 9 are "literal insects, bred in the smoke of the bottomless pit, as insects are, commonly, in a blight;" or that the woman in Rev. 12, is "some pious and excellent woman, perhaps a queen.") Symbols, figures, plain language, all occur, here and there. One theorist, according to the character of his mind sees nothing but figure; another reads nothing but letter. Real wisdom bows to what God gives and as He gives it; accepts and seeks to understand all that He reveals, whatever the form. Verbal inspiration has nothing to do with the matter. Has not God been pleased to use both symbol and language, and the words of daily life? To assume that all is literal is to close one's eyes to facts, which need no further evidence for such as can see.

Further, St. Paul positively calls it "bread" we break: why is this not literal? In what follows we have those figures, which no language can be spoken without - "the cup which we bless." Was it the cup he blessed? Proper literality in the strict sense would make nonsense of all language - is not its known sense. I drink a glass of wine: who ever doubted what this meant. It is not, as men speak, the literal sense to give the physical one. He drew a picture of vice in his sermon: who thinks he drew a picture? So, in a nearer case, a man brings his sin (chattath) to Jehovah. Christ was made sin. These bones are the whole house of Israel: does any one doubt what, it means? There are many such in Ezekiel: only here we have no verb at all.

Not a word of this could apply to the so-called spiritual Israel, but only to the ancient people of Jehovah; nor could the language consist with Gentiles either. Taken in their ordinary import of the terms the reasoning is as sound as the meaning is important. For we are thereby taught to read Israel in its literal force throughout the prophets as the apostle did; and so Zion, Jerusalem, Judah, Ephraim, and all other names. Figurative language there is abundantly in both the Old Testament and the New. It is so in every-day life, and yet more on occasions when we are more than ordinarily concerned. But the names designate facts, even the well-known objects as they occur, and are never themselves figures. Symbols also are employed, which differ from figures as being a composite of ideas which the prophet saw and describes for the more graphic delineation of the object. There is no uncertainty in the employment of either symbol or figurative expression, but rather to give objects all the more force. The objects are real, not ideal, in every case. As plain language is constantly intermingled with figures, there need never be any great difficulty. So when symbols are employed, there is often an interpretation added: only we have to bear in mind that divine interpretations may and do frequently give more than the statement under explanation. The Holy Spirit gives all requisite guidance in comparing scripture with scripture; and He is needed for profitable understanding of Genesis and John as truly as He is for using Ezekiel and the Revelation aright. The true difficulty is quite independent of figures or symbols, and lies in employing the same object now and then as the vehicle of a lesser primary application, while it also looks onward to a larger and more complete fulfilment in due time; the right apprehension of which is at least occasionally a matter of delicacy.