John Calvin, Commentary on Amos 8:9
Were any one disposed to lay-hold on what is literal and to cleave to it, his notions would be gross and insipid, not only with regard to the writings of the Prophets, but also with regard to all other writings; for there is no language which has not its figurative expressions.
4 replies on “Insipid Literalism”
I appreciate this thought. Joe Morecraft has said that at some point it’s unbiblical to be literal where, such as in Revelation, clearly the author has intended to spiritualize.
Indeed: although, in order to deny the claim that we are not taking the Bible literally, I prefer to define literal as “in accordance with the author’s intentions”. Shall we take Virginia Woolf’s Orlando literally? Well, if we take literal to be physical, material, then that would land us in absurdity. But shall we say we are not taking her literally, when we are, in fact, understanding the letters she has written in accordance with her aim?
Besides which, Owen Barfield has shown that the “literal” idea of language is somewhat of an artificial construct.
Reminds me of Thomas Aquinas’s distinction between univocal, equivocal, and analogical use of language. It seems that, even today, so many of people’s problems with Scripture stem from confusing these ideas.
Indeed, Vic, I think you are right. We have cast Aquinas (yea, all the medievals) as villains who held to the fourfold use of Scripture: we have used a slippery-slope argument that Scripture invariably becomes a wax nose when allegory is allowed, and we have not considered reasons.