Biblical Literalism
Traditional Adventists interpret much of the Bible literally, believing that Bible stories are accurate representations of literal historical events. SDA Fundamental Belief #1 makes this bold claim, but not all Adventists and Christians read the Bible this way.
When we refer to biblical literalism, we’re referring to the modern, widespread belief that major stories in the Bible (e.g. Jonah being swallowed and spit out by a giant fish) happened literally in history, just as described in the Bible. "Biblical literalism" is a flawed term, but we use it because most people will recognize and understand it compared to less common terms like biblicism or scripturalism.
To be clear, nobody interprets the entire Bible literally. The Bible contains many metaphors and stories that readers acknowledge are parables. Psalm 18:2 says "The Lord is my rock," but nobody believes that God is literally a rock. Adventists say the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is clearly a parable and not a literal, historical event (if it was historical, it would contradict their doctrine on the state of the dead).
According to Mark 4:30-32, Jesus said the mustard seed "is the smallest of all the seeds on earth." But since the smallest seeds actually come from orchids, fundamentalists have reinterpreted Jesus' words non-literally. The text says "all the seeds on earth," but some apologists claim that Jesus only referred to seeds used by local farmers. Others suggest that "smaller seeds could have formed over the last 2,000 years."
Many fundamentalists support literal interpretations of the Bible when a literal reading supports their dogmas, but they often reinterpret the Bible non-literally when it does not support their agendas.
Nobody truly believes the entire Bible should always be read literally, but many fundamentalists support biblical literalism because it makes the Bible more authoritative to them. In the next sections, we’ll explore a brief history of how and why biblical literalism came to dominate Christianity in the United States, and by extension, the Adventist movement.
Recent Invention
Believe it or not, biblicism—the emphasis on interpreting much of the Bible literally—is a fairly modern idea. The first known instances of the term "biblicism" occurred in the 1800s (1805 according to Merriam-Webster and 1843 according to the Oxford English Dictionary).
Bible scholar Pete Enns' definition of biblicism includes a tendency to prooftext:
Biblicism is the tendency to appeal to individual biblical verses, or collections of (apparently) uniform verses from various parts of the Bible, to give the appearance of clear, authoritative, and final resolutions to what are in fact complex interpretive and theological issues generated by the fact that we have a complex and diverse Bible.
Put another way, biblicism is a tendency to prooftext—where the "plain sense" of verses are put forth as final and incontrovertible "proof" of a given theological position.
The Second Great Awakening and the fundamentalist movement starting in the 19th century both reinforced biblical literalism. They emphasized the importance of a personal experience with God and belief in the authority of the Bible as the literal word of God, using it as proof for their religious beliefs.
This led to many Protestants rejecting the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation which was initially developed in the 1600s. They instead embraced the historical-grammatical method which began in the 18th century and came with a strong belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
Early Christians
It is important to note that some early Christians and theologians such as Origen fully rejected literal interpretations that many Adventists and Evangelical Christians believe in today, including the creation story in Genesis. Origen, who lived from c. 185 to c. 253, wrote the following in On the First Principles IV.16:
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?
And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?
And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
Origen is essentially saying, "Is anyone foolish enough to think God literally planted a garden, and that there were evenings and mornings before the sun even existed?" This is a clear example that the early Christians did not believe in a completely literal interpretation of the Bible—not even the first book.
Can you imagine an Adventist pastor preaching this from the pulpit today? This statement on the Book of Genesis would likely be considered heresy by many Seventh-day Adventists, and yet it was written by a Christian theologian born only ~150 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death.
Adventist Impact
William Miller was a biblical literalist, which is partly what led him to predict a time range for the second coming of Jesus. The Investigative Judgment doctrine also relies on biblical literalism. It’s based on literal interpretations of Bible prophecy and teaches that Jesus is in a literal sanctuary in heaven today.
Biblical literalism also had a major impact on Adventism's strict, dogmatic belief in Young Earth Creationism. We'll explore that more in a future section, but just know that biblical literalism is one of the reasons why Ellen White and later Adventists helped grow the modern Young Earth Creationist movement.
As we explored earlier, biblical literalism comes with a tendency to prooftext and some Adventists readily admit that prooftexting has been a part of Adventism from the very beginning. Retired Adventist pastor Lawrence Downing wrote the following in a 2017 article for Adventist Today:
From our earliest history, proof texts were part of the Adventist offensive arsenal... Proof texts were considered an essential and reliable method to defend what we proclaimed, and we had our proof text to assure us we were on to something: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Isaiah 28:10 (KJV).
Many modern Adventists are still biblical literalists. #1 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs focuses on the Bible and while it doesn't say "We believe in biblical literalism," it does say the Bible is the "infallible revelation" of God’s will and that it provides a "trustworthy record of God’s acts in history."
The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are …the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.
Biblical literalism presents several challenges, because it is often difficult—and sometimes impossible—to honestly reconcile a literal interpretation of Bible stories with the huge amount of historical and scientific evidence available to us. As Origen suggested over 1,500 years ago, these stories do have concepts that can be understood and appreciated figuratively, but they should not always be interpreted literally.
Despite its many issues, biblical literalism has had an enormous influence on Christianity and Adventism to this day, including how many Adventist leaders, theologians, and pastors read and teach from the Bible. Ted Wilson, the General Conference President, has repeatedly said the historical-grammatical approach is the official method the Adventist church uses for bible interpretation.
Wilson even gave a stern warning that Adventists should "stay away" from other Adventists who read the Bible differently, claiming that they’re "twisting the word of God." Wilson also scolded leaders, telling them to resign if they do not read the Bible "as it reads." A few Adventists have criticized his statements.
Line Upon Line
Many Adventists, including SDA prophet Ellen White and General Conference President Ted Wilson, have literally interpreted verses in Isaiah 28 as an example of how to properly read the Bible: "Line upon line, precept upon precept." For example, in Manuscript 9, 1893, Ellen White wrote:
Do not let the rising generation be given over to the enemy. There are many in disobedience to God’s commands now. But you can begin to teach them line upon line, and precept upon precept.
Ellen White and other Adventists have often missed Isaiah's point thanks to a poor translation from the original Hebrew, which was taken out of context. This was never meant to be an example of how to read the Bible. Isaiah 28:9-13 refers to drunk priests mocking the Jewish scriptures and Isaiah's preaching.
This is obvious when you read the whole chapter of Isaiah 28, where the author criticizes drunk priests:
(1) Woe to the proud garland of the drunkards of Ephraim… (7-8) These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink; they are confused with wine; they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision; they stumble in giving judgment. All tables are covered with filthy vomit; no place is clean.
In verses 10 and 13, the author is paraphrasing the drunk priests who are making fun of Isaiah’s preaching and saying: "For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." According to Isaiah, the drunk priests are essentially saying "Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah." This is especially clear in verse 13:
Therefore the word of the Lord will be to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little," in order that they may go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken.
Some Adventists, including pastor Seth Pierce and pastor David Hamstra, have also pointed out that Isaiah 28 is clearly referring to drunk priests. Pastor Hamstra wrote the following in a 2006 blog post:
The context of this passage is an oracle against drunken priests who are unable to teach even infants because they cannot even speak properly. Verse 13 makes it abundantly clear that "precept upon precept..." is something detrimental, not a principle of Biblical interpretation. Taken alone verse 12 might sound like a reasonable teaching, but in context we realize that it is the product of drunkenness.
According to Bible scholar Dan McClellan, this fact is very clear in the original Hebrew:
The Hebrew is repetitive and nonsensical precisely because it is supposed to be mimicking unintelligible speech. This is why the very next line is "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." Literally, the Hebrew says tsav latsav tsav latsav qav laqav qav laqav. Isaiah is basically saying, "he's gonna say 'blah blah blah blah,' and you won't be able to understand." The translators in the 16th and 17th centuries didn't recognize this rhetorical device and tried hard to make some kind of sense of the words, which required some etymological fudging, but they came up with a plumb line and a word that refers to a precept or principle.
This literal interpretation and misunderstanding of Isaiah 28 is not limited to Adventists. The Book of Mormon directly references this passage from Isaiah in 2 Nephi 28:30, saying:
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel...
Just like Ellen White, Mormon prophet Joseph Smith misunderstood the point Isaiah 28 tried to make. Mormon apostle David Bednar also misunderstood it when he described this as "the Lord's pattern and process for giving us spiritual knowledge." Most Adventists and Mormons are misinformed on Isaiah 28, especially when they read it literally and try to use "precept upon precept" as a prooftext for their dogmas.
Summary
Biblical literalism is a fairly modern and problematic invention. The Bible cannot and should not be interpreted literally all the time. This basic fact was recognized by the earliest Christians and early theologians.
- The modern practice of interpreting the Bible literally came with the rise of the fundamentalist movement in the 19th century. Some of the significant stories in the Bible, (e.g. the creation story in Genesis), were not taken literally by early Christian theologians like Origen.
- Interpreting the Bible as fully or mostly literal makes it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to reconcile some Bible stories with the historical and scientific evidence available to us. As Origen argued over 1,500 years ago, some stories can be appreciated figuratively, but not all of them should be taken literally.
- William Miller was a biblical literalist, which is partly why he tried predicting when Jesus would return. From the Millerite movement to the modern SDA church, Adventist theology and doctrines like the Investigative Judgment have relied heavily on biblical literalism.
- SDA Fundamental Belief #1 claims the Bible contains "the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." This bold claim is not backed by Bible scholars, historians, or archaeological evidence. While there is some evidence for certain Biblical accounts, it is false to claim the entire Bible is historically accurate.
- Ellen White literally interpreted passages in Isaiah 28 to mean that Christians should read the Bible "line upon line, precept upon precept." She missed the original context of the full chapter thanks to the mistranslation in the King James Version. The original Hebrew makes it clear that "line upon line, precept upon precept" is gibberish, and Isaiah is describing drunk priests mocking Jewish scriptures.
- Mormon prophet Joseph Smith made the same mistake as Ellen White, as he also relied on the KJV's mistranslation of this passage. Adventists and Mormons have often referred to "precept upon precept" as the example for how to read the Bible and gain spiritual knowledge, when in fact the original Hebrew text was intentionally written as gibberish. This is just one example of the pitfalls of biblical literalism.