Will The Real “Literalist’ Please Stand Up

Prophecy has often been called “history in advance.” It is not. Certainly, the prophets did predict future events in history, but not in the form of historical writing. Instead, the prophets used symbols and figures borrowed from history, from the surrounding culture, and from creation. Most errors in interpreting the prophets stem from the neglect of this principle. As a matter of fact, all interpreters are forced at one time or another to admit this. No one (to my knowledge) believes that the Beast of Rev. 13 is really an animal; no one thinks there ever has been or will be a pregnant lady standing on the moon and clothed with the sun (12:1-2); no one understands Satan to be actually “a great red dragon with seven heads” (12:3).That’s great, but let’s be consistent! We should seek to understand the other symbols in the same way. I once heard a pastor deliver a very earnest and thrilling lecture on space stations and interplanetary voyages, using Rev. 21:10 as his text. It was, on the whole, a very enjoyable speech, and a marvelous tribute to the pastor’s wealth of learning in the field of science fiction; but the enchanted audience left the meeting at least as ignorant of Scripture as they had been when It began.

Let’s consider an example of the way a “literalist” approaches the Book of Revelation. In his recent commentary, Henry M. Morris claims that “if there is anything really new in this commentary…..it is its literal approach to Bible study, one that assumes the best interpretation to be no interpretation.” Now, Morris is quite aware, of course, that he is only one among a vast horde of allegedly “literal” expositors; nevertheless, he believes that his commentary “could possibly be the most literal since even literalist and futurist expositors seem often to resort to doubtful symbolic and figurative expressions here and there throughout their expositions. Actually, a ‘literal Interpretation’ is a contradiction In terms, since one does not interpret (that is, ‘translate’ saying ‘this means that’) If he simply accepts a statement as meaning precisely what It says. Furthermore, the terms ‘more literal’ or ‘most literal’ are redundancies. Literal Is literal.”1 And, he informs us, “most of Revelation is to be taken literally”2—i.e., everything except those parts that Morris thinks shouldn’t be taken literally.

For example, according to the literal Henry Morris, the sword coming from Christ’s mouth (Rev. 1:16; 19:15) Is not literally a sword; rather, “the very appearance of the glorified Christ and the sound of the majestic voice flowing from the blinding light of His countenance gave every word a swordlike brilliance and sharpness that was almost visible.”3 In a veritable torrent—figuratively speaking, of course—against such wooden literalism, Morris tells us that Satan’s throne (2:13) is not really a throne; the soiled and white garments (3:4) are not really garments; the “open door” (3:8) is not a real door; the pillars (3:12) are not pillars; the “lukewarm” temperature of the Laodiceans (3:15-16) does not refer to their actual, physical temperature; the Laodiceans are not literally naked (3:17); Christ is not literally selling gold, clothing and eye salve (3:18); and the door at which He is standing and knocking (3:20) is not literally a door! Morris says that, instead, “His rebuke and chastening are like a knock at one’s door…..The occupant must open the door. That Is, he must repent…..”4This smacks suspiciously of Interpretation; doesn’t the statement mean “precisely what it says”?

But there is more. The Lion (5:5) Is not a lion, nor is the Lamb (5:6) a Iamb; the sealing of the servants of God In their foreheads (7:3) may not be a real sealing, but “perhaps” is a “reference to the special instruction and understanding they must acquire in their minds (the forehead perhaps includes a cryptic reference [!] to the brain’s frontal lobe).”5 The non-literal robes of 7:14 are not literally “washed in blood”; the blood of 8:7-9 Is not literal blood, but “possibly blood-colored water”;6 the locusts (9:3ff.) are emphatically not locusts; the olive trees and lampstands (11:4) are not olive trees and lampstands; and, instead of the fire proceeding from the mouths of the witnesses being real, literal fire (assuming the text means precisely what It says), It Is rather “a spoken word as though a consuming fire were leaping from their tongues.”7

The Beast (11:7; 13:1ff.) isn’t a beast; the woman, sun, moon and stars (12:1) aren’t really a woman, sun, moon and stars; and, since the woman isn’t a woman, she isn’t literally pregnant (12:2); nor is she being chased by a literal dragon (12:3); nor is she protected by the wings of a literal eagle (12:14); and, when it comes to the river pouring out from the dragon’s mouth (12:15), Morris says: “The symbol [!] is somewhat ambiguous, it can hardly be a literal river….. The most probably [sic] meaning of the sign is that of an overwhelming army dispatched by the beast….”8 The wine (14:8-10) isn’t wine; the sickle (14:14-16) isn’t really a sickle, and thus is not literally reaping (instead, it “obviously” symbolizes a massive immigration!9); the grapes (14:18) are not really grapes, and they are being crushed in a winepress (14:19) that isn’t a winepress. The bowls ( 16:1 ff.) aren’t literal bowls; the sea isn’t really turned to blood, as a literal reading would lead us to believe (16:3), but is instead “merely a chemical solution” which gives the sea “a blood-red appearance.”10 And, directly contradicting the literal understanding of the text (16:12), Dr. Morris claims that “the drying up of the Euphrates is not, of course, necessary before these eastern hordes can cross it, except perhaps as a symbol…..”11

The Harlot sitting on the waters (17:1) is not a harlot, is not “sitting,” and the waters aren’t literal anyway (which is probably just as well, since it’s just as difficult to sit on real water as on figurative water); although the text states that she is guilty of fornication (17:2), Morris tells us that she “could not have literally committed fornication”;12 in her non-literal hand she holds a non-literal cup (17:2ff.) containing figurative wine which the nations figuratively drink. Now, since the Harlot is only symbolic, she of course doesn’t have a literal forehead, and thus the name inscribed on her forehead (17:5) is not really there at all. The heads of the Beast on which she sits (17:9-10) are really only figurative heads, which are symbolic of figurative mountains, which are symbolic of figurative kings, which are symbolic of (at last!) real kingdoms.

After all that, one might think that Dr. Morris had, In fact, abandoned the literal method of exegesis. But no! The Galloping Hermeneutic comes to the rescue In chapter 21, where we are told that the Holy City is strikingly similar to a space station: “The Scriptures taken literally as they were meant to be taken, do teach that there is even now a great city being built by Christ far out in space somewhere.”13 (Speaking of being “far out in space somewhere….”!).

I have taken Morris to task, not because I bear any ill will toward him, or because I think he is an idiot. On the contrary, he is a brilliant man, a very able scholar, and one who has rendered important service for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The fact that a man with such high credentials could fall into such ridiculous inconsistencies requires us to ask questions: How can this be? How can a leading Christian scholar paint himself into an exegetical corner so easily? Why should a man feel compelled to insist that his is a highly literal—indeed, the “most literal”—commentary, when it in fact leans so heavily on symbolic and figurative explanations? Why would someone claim that “the best interpretation” is “no interpretation,” when he, in fact, cannot avoid interpreting? (And, even aside from the fact that interpretation is inescapable, I must point out that many of Morris’s Interpretations are quite helpful.) What Is the problem? The problem is in the false hermeneutic—a misleading system of Interpretation that buffaloes even the most careful expositors.

1. Henry M. Morris, The Revelation Record (Wheaton, IL, 1983), 24.

2. ibid., 213.

3. ibid., 43.

4. ibid 78.

5. ibid., 128, How in the world did a “cryptic reference” find its way into such a literal book?

6. ibid., 145; cf. 147.

7. ibid., 197.

8. ibid., 229.

9. ibid., 276.

10. ibid., 298.

11. ibid., 311.

12. ibid., 325.

13. ibid., 438.