For the purpose of illustration, let me state something confusing: Spinoza is a biblical literalist and so are Ryrie and Augustine. It’s also true that Spinoza is not a literalist and neither are Ryrie and Augustine.
Let’s introduce ourselves to the cast of theologians. Augustine (354-430 AD) was a theologian in North Africa and perhaps the most influential of the Church Fathers. His theological reflections were the foundation of the Reformation. Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677 AD) was a Dutch philosopher who attacked both Jewish and Christian orthodoxy through a hermeneutical system. And Charles Ryrie is an elder statesman for Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a view of the end times requiring almost absolute separation between Israel and the Church and is widely held by conservative Christians in the U.S.
These three men each held to a form of biblical literalism, and they illustrate for us what I am calling the problem of literalism. Literalism in our context is a belief policy about how to read the Bible. So Spinoza thought the Bible should be read literally as did Augustine and Ryrie, but each meant something quite different.
We then face a situation where there are three fairly distinct definitions of literalism: Spinoza’s literalism attacks the possibility of revelation. Augustine’s literalism supports the historical reality of the Bible. And Ryrie’s literalism supports a particular view of the end times.
Let’s spend a few moments establishing their definitions from their own writings.
Augustine’s understanding of literalism can be found in his commentary on the opening chapters of Genesis entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesis ad Litteram). He states there:
But this is to give an allegorical and prophetical interpretation, a thing which I did not set out to do in this treatise. I have started here to discuss Sacred Scripture according to the plain meaning of the historical facts, not according to future events which they foreshadow. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, in Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 41, trans. John Hammond Taylor (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982) 39, 1.17.34.
In Augustine “literalism” is the historical reality of the text in comparison to the future and spiritual significance. Augustine would certainly not approve of the modern tendency of combining allegorical and mythological. Regardless, he is attempting in his commentary to work out the historical and factual framework communicated by the creation account.
Spinoza is a fascinating figure because his work is often seen as laying the foundation for biblical higher criticism by demanding that the Bible have only human authors. His form of literalism became a weapon to deconstruct the Bible and savage Jewish and Christian orthodoxy as foolish and incoherent. Here’s a quote that catches both the power of his rhetoric and his basic interpretive policy:
But we should depart as little as possible from the literal sense. . . . If we do not find it signifying anything else in normal linguistic usage, that is how we must interpret the expression, however much it may conflict with reason. . . . For, as we have already shown, we are not permitted to adjust meaning of Scripture to the dictates of our reason or our preconceived opinions; all explanations of the Bible must be sought from the Bible alone. Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 101.
The third usage is the interpretive policy of Christians who hold to Dispensationalism. Ryrie puts it this way:
[Literalism] means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.” Dispensationalism: Revised and Updated (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007), 91.
And then he adds a longer quote from J. P. Lange:
The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein: his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterance are interpreted—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Ibid.).
Here we are: three definitions and three ways of going about reading the Bible. Some overlap is identifiable, and yet there is considerable distinction between the three definitions, and hence the problem of literalism.
My intention, Lord willing, is to consider each of these “literalisms” separately along with their ramifications over the next several months. Next month, we will consider “Caustic Literalism” as held by Spinoza.