What is "Literal"?

I don’t expect to write concerning everything at the moment, so my responses will be in parts, dealing with particular segments of what Jerry Shugart wrote. First of all, thanks for responding. The following will examine Charles Ryrie’s definition of literal.

[Jerry Shugart] I will give you the meaning which Charles Ryrie gives to ‘literal hermeneutics.” He says, “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking…the meaning of each word is determined by grammical and historical considerations…If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also floow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] , 80-81).

Yes, it is understood that Dispensationalists made the claim to practicing literal interpretation. The next sentence he begins to actually define what he means by “literal hermeneutics”. It is “interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.” I full well understand that he qualified his meaning later with the “grammical and historical considerations”, but I’m just going to look at “normative” for now. When the word “normal” comes up, I automatically think, “Which norm? Which time period? Which worldview? Which cultural specific ways of communicating? Which genre?” As is the case, when one speaks, writes, or thinks, he is often using multiple different genres. I may be saying that I wound up the hose in the back yard to indicate that I wound up the hose in the back yard, or I may be using a colorful expression of indicating that I killed a snake in the back yard. I wound him up, and put him in his place. The first is literal “normative” usage, and the second is not a literal “normative” usage. Also, in today’s society, one typically does not have an agrarian mindset like the first century and before, also one may not have the mindset of the Levitical priesthood, so when I read “cow” in the Bible now, and when a 1st century believer said “cow” back then, our “norms” are different so that what is communicated in each case is remarkably different. Also, what may be normal for a modern Christian having to deal with attacks from the secular mindset using the “scientific method”, may not be the same norm for the Israelite getting ready to cross the Jordan River for the first time to enter the promised land. What that Jewish person sees in the normal reading of the text, may be entirelly different than the norm of today. Restated, one may approach words normally with a hyper scientific precision, while one back then would approach the words normally without that precision. More could be added, but “normal” is just too vague to define the term “literal”, for it misses too much that goes into the interpretive process, and by that same token it can be misleading.

He then takes us away from present norms to the “grammical and historical considerations.” Yet, once again, “literal hermeneutics” seems to be a overly fluid term. Why is this? Grammatical/historical considerations take into account multiple different genres; all of these genres are not “literal”. Yet, this definition of literal hermeneutics still places the meaning of “literal hermeneutics” as being grammatical/historical. Too much appears to be getting loaded into the term “literal”. To demonstrate this, consider the following from dictionary.com on the meaning of the term “literal”.

1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.

3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.

4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.

5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

6. of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet.

7. of the nature of letters.

8. expressed by letters.

9. affecting a letter or letters: a literal error.

#1 rules out the figurative or metaphorical; #2 is not completely relevant to this discussion; #3&4 rules out hyperbolic language, which is normative, and historical; certainly, a hyperbolic expression of something is not inaccurate so long as the reader or hearer understands it as such; it also rules out the figurative and metaphorical which is prevalent in Hebrew poetry. #5 seems to rule out imaginative uses of language, which is contrary to normal and historical understandings. #6-#9 are not relevant to this discussion. It is no wonder to me that Dispensationalists often get the charge that they use a woodenly literal method, but this is not the case. The missunderstanding appears to come from the nondispensationalists assumption of self-consistency of dispensationalist language. They assume that a dispensationalist uses the term “literal” in a “literal” way, but this is not completely true. The “literalist” loads everything except allegorical into the term “literal”, and then calls it literal, but this is hardly a literal use of the word literal, except in the nonliteral way of defining literal, which Ryrie is using here. But apart from the literal use of literal, Ryrie has made his position clear, “maybe”!

Great, I must apologize for the fact that I have to cut off the response at this point. Others are wanting me to do things that take me away from this discussion. At present, I’ve been critical, but more evaluation is to come that will include a few more favorable remarks.

[Jerry Shugart] I will give you the meaning which Charles Ryrie gives to ‘literal hermeneutics.” He says, “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking…the meaning of each word is determined by grammical and historical considerations…If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also floow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] , 80-81).

Before continuing, I again, just want to say “thank you” to Jerry Shugart for your time. I have read Jerry’s response to my last posting, and I’m just going to continue responding to Ryrie’s definition because I don’t wish to omit saying good things where they are deserved.

Last time I did not get to the following. “If God is the originator of language …” It is here that I just want to say a big hearty “amen”. God most certainly is the originator of language, and I am glad that this has been mentioned. A theology of language “must” begin with God and filter down into how we see ourselves. Too often the focus is on man’s use of language, and then things filter up into how we are supposed to see God. I disagree with the (man centered) paradigm because it appears to have a basis in a self-defeating epistemology. In other words, such a way of gaining knowledge is self-refuting in such a paradigm. Anyway, God is most certainly the originator of language, and this needs to be the basis of our thinking about language and communication.

” … and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity,” I am unable, at present, to make such a leap in theology. I’m not sure where Ryrie is getting this. I’ll end this paragraph with a question. Is God’s chief purpose of originating language to convey His message to humanity? Really? What about communication within the Trinity?

“… then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind.” One of the premises is questionable, so I’m unable at present to see how anything follows. Further, given that Ryrie has God’s “chief purpose” correct, then the ramification still do not “necessarily” follow. Why? In order for God to convey all that was in His heart to mankind, then God would have to make man with the capacity to be able to be omniscient, then God could convey ALL that was in His heart to mankind. But I don’t see man with such an ability, and actually I see man with a magnificently smaller mind than that. Further, Deuteronomy 29:29 makes it clear that God has not revealed all that is in His heart. Further, God’s intent often seems (Prov 3:5-6) to secure a person’s trust, rather than revealing everything to a person. Now, perhaps Ryrie is thinking in terms of a progressive unveiling of all of God’s heart throughout the whole course of human history. This would fit with progressive revelation. Yet, even then, I’m still wary of this because I do not see such language in the Bible governing or indicating that this is a valid inference. Certainly, “relationship” is a very important aspect of God’s plan, and “relationship” requires a means of communication, and the relationship with God is restored through the cross. But then his quote can be looked at in another angle. One could focus on “sufficient language”. I might be able to see how God’s giving to man the ability to communicate means that therefore man and God have a means of communication together, but then I still have serious difficulty with “conveying all that was in His heart to tell mankind”. I don’t have a problem with God conveying all that He decided to convey in His heart to tell mankind; Scripture can support that statement but not Ryrie’s, at least in my limited knowledge of the Bible. (I may very well be wrong.)

”Furthermore, it must also floow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense.” See previous comments on the overly elastic use of the term “literal”. See previous on issues involved with “normal”. In regards to “plain”, what is that supposed to mean? The Proverbs (over generalization) are not incredibly plain for the expressed purpose of getting the reader to sit and think about what is being said. Further, how plain is plain. Does that mean that nothing in the Bible is hard to understand? Then we would be having issue with Peter’s interpretation of Paul, about him being hard to understand. Whatever does “plain” mean? Dictionary.com gives an answer.

1. clear or distinct to the eye or ear: a plain trail to the river; to stand in plain view.

2. clear to the mind; evident, manifest, or obvious: to make one’s meaning plain.

3. conveying the meaning clearly and simply; easily understood: plain talk.

4. downright; sheer; utter; self-evident: plain folly; plain stupidity.

5. free from ambiguity or evasion; candid; outspoken: the plain truth of the matter.

6. without special pretensions, superiority, elegance, etc.; ordinary: plain people.

7. not beautiful; physically unattractive or undistinguished: a plain face.

8. without intricacies or difficulties.

9. ordinary, simple, or unostentatious: Although she was a duchess, her manners were attractively plain.

10. with little or no embellishment, decoration, or enhancing elaboration: a plain blue suit.

11. without a pattern, figure, or device: a plain fabric.

12. not rich, highly seasoned, or elaborately prepared, as food: a plain diet.

13. flat or level: plain country.

14. unobstructed, clear, or open, as ground, a space, etc.

15. Cards. being other than a face card or a trump.

Obviously, the “plain” meaning of 70 times 7 is 490, so that is exacly how many times we should forgive eachother!

”The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought” Ok, no deeper meaning of 490 is to be sought after. I’m sorry, there is just too much ambiguity here. I assume that he is referencing “allegorical” language, but I’m not understanding what exactly this “special use” is. What if the deeper meaning is specifically stated by later revelation? Should we then disregard Galatians 4? Should we do a Thomas Jefferson and get out our scissors? (Obviously not!) When the Psalms say that God is our shield, should we then go searching for a wooden or metalic instrument for defending one’s self? Or should we understand that in a deeper sense as God being our protection when we trust in Him? Again, Ryrie’s words are just too vauge.

To everyone, I would just like to convey that my “tone” is that of expressing thought. I’m not trying to be mean or demeaning; I’m simply trying to examine Ryrie’s comments and fit it into other thoughts. It is mainly critical because the definition so far (in my opinion) has just been too subjective. So please understand that I’m not trying to be rude or mean.

[Jerry Shugart]

[Caleb S] Does “literal” language encompass figurative language, like the Psalms? And if this is so, then why is it still called “literal”?

Ryrie says that “literal” interpretation “might also be designated ‘plain’ interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader” (Ibid.).

As has already been stated, the exact opposite is the case when you take the word “plain” literally. “Plain” interpretation rules out the figurative just like the term “literal” does. I’m also noticing how much he keeps recycling the term “plain”, and I keep hearing that it is plain because it is plain, and this is in no way contrary to literal.

If I were to summarize his point, (and please correct me if I’m wrong) then it seems that his main point is that a literal interpretation does not exclude figures of speech, symbols, and types. “Plain” and “literal” appear nearly synanymous and seem to be interchangeable. However, if one looks up the “normal” mean of the word “literal” in the English language, then those things seem to be excluded. (see prior postings) The word “plain” does the same thing. Asside from criticizing his use of words, he does seem to be including everything (figures of speech, symbols, and types) under the label of literal/plain.

The part that intrigues me the most is this comment: “After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved.” It is here that he must be reverting back to a literal use of the term “literal” or else his meaning is destroyed. In the following comments I’m going to be using the dictionary use of the term “literal”. The statement is a statement of the extremely obvious. Of course there is a literal meaning to words. The issue has always been moving past the literal. Does the further meaning of the literal figure allow one to go from “God is my shield” to “God is my protection”. The point of similarity between God and the shield is that God protects. Similarly, Herod is described as a fox. Does this mean that Herod is furry and gets chased by dogs? Does this means that Herod walks on all fours and has paws? No, the point of similarity is that Herod and the fox are both sly.

I still end with the question of the opening post. Does “literal” language encompass figurative language, like the Psalms? And if this is so, then why is it still called “literal”?