The importance of the subject of Biblical interpretation cannot be over
emphasised. 2 Timothy 2:15 states, “Be diligent to present yourself
approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed,
handling accurately the word of truth.” Often, major points of
disagreement between Christians stem from opposing methods of how
to read God’s Word. Lives have been ruined, families hurt and the faith
of many has been shipwrecked, not necessarily from a lack of Bible
reading (although this is also often the case) but from wrong
interpretation. It is the aim of this article to focus on the main points of a
topic to which volumes have been dedicated. Unfortunately, much of
what has been written has, I believe, overcomplicated what should be a
relatively straight forward activity – reading God’s Word. Of course,
effort, diligence and even some guidelines are needed to reach the truth
by correctly interpreting the Bible, but this can be achieved by anyone!
However, it is important to remember, Bible study starts with getting our
hearts right, meaning, prayer, submission, confession of sin,
thanksgiving etc are foundational to Bible study. Psalm 25:9 reveals, “He
teaches the humble His way,”. In Luke 8:15 Jesus instructs, “And the
seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an
honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with
perseverance.” 2 Corinthians 2:17 teaches us that God’s Word must be
spoken from a pure hear, as from God, speaking in Christ, in the sight of
God. The listening, applying and speaking of God’s Word must flow from
a right heart.
Without question, the Bible uses figurative language and symbolism to
teach what the Holy Spirit wants to communicate to us. However, God
uses these methods to convey literal truth. For example, in Revelation
chapter 1 we read of lampstands and stars which, as we are told in Rev
1:20, are symbols teaching a literal truth, they represent the angels of
the seven churches and the churches themselves. In the book of Daniel
horns are a symbol to teach a literal truth about earthly kingdoms (Daniel
7:24). It is significant to note how often, as in the two examples given,
Scripture actually interprets symbolism and figurative language for us. If
Scripture is our sole authority, then we must allow Scripture to interpret
the meanings of the symbols the Holy Spirit has chosen to use.
Otherwise, the interpretation of many passages is pure guess work. If an
explanation is not given in the passage containing the symbol or figure
of speech, often, it can be found elsewhere in Scripture. “The sum of
Thy word is truth.” (Psalm 119:160).
Let us always keep in the front of our mind these questions – 1) Does my interpretation fit the context of the surrounding passage? 2) Does my interpretation contradict or harmonise with the rest of Scripture? 3) Do the words and phrases in their plain and common sense make sense? 4) Does my interpretation obey or violate the commonly understood rules of language?
It is our belief that the use of symbolic and figurative language in
Scripture does not necessitate allegorical, figurative, or spiritualized
interpretation. (Allegorical, figurative and spiritualized interpretation are
difficult to clearly differentiate between, so they will be used in this article
as synonyms, basically meaning the same thing). Although there are
many methods of interpretation, in Biblical hermeneutics the two most
frequent are A) The ‘allegorical method’ (or, figurative, spiritualized
interpretation, B) The ‘literal method’ (or, ‘grammatical-historical
method’). We will now examine both.
A. The allegorical method.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines allegory as “a story, play, poem,
picture, etc., in which the meaning or message is represented
symbolically.” A. Berkeley Mickelsen notes, “An allegory is a story put
together with several points of comparison… Often there is some
ambiguity as to how many points in complex comparison are there to
convey specific teaching.” Berkeley goes on to say, “Allegory, a very
legitimate way of teaching truth, should not be confused with
allegorizing, which takes a narrative that was not meant to teach truth by
identification. By a point by point comparison , allegorizing makes the
narrative convey ideas different from those intended by the original
author.” (Interpreting the Bible, p.230-231). J. Dwight Pentecost concurs,
“Scripture abounds in allegories, whether types, symbols, , or parables.
These are accepted and legitimate media of communication and
thought. They do not call for an allegorical method of interpretation,
which would deny the literal or historical antecedent and use the allegory
simply as a springboard for the interpreter’s imagination.” (Things to
Come, p.7-8).
In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul tells us the account of the ‘bond and free
woman’ is an allegory. But he does not deny the literal history of the
events he mentions in Genesis. It is also vital to remember that Paul’s
explanation of the allegory was given to him by the Holy Spirit as he was
inspired to write his letter to the Galatians. Paul’s explanation of the
allegory is not the same as allegorical interpretation, in the sense that he
does not deny it’s plain and literal meaning as originally written in
Genesis, Paul explains what the literal historical event came to
symbolise. The symbolic explanation depends on the initial plain and
literal interpretation. Allegorical interpretation, on the other hand, either
places little significance on the literal meaning, or denies it completely.
To put it simply, the allegorical method imposes a meaning on a text that
differs from the plain every day understanding which the author originally
intended. It robs words of their plain meaning making linguistic
communication anything but clear, and a solid conclusion impossible to
arrive at. Again, it is agreed that symbolic and figurative language is
used in the Bible, but always to convey literal truth, the symbols
explained by Scripture itself, not by the imagination of the interpreter.
When asked by the high priest about His teaching (‘didache’ G1322 –
doctrine, )the Lord Jesus Christ responded, “I have spoken openly 3954
(‘parresia’ – often meaning, boldly, without ambiguity, plainly) to the
world;” (John 18:20). If Christ delivered His teaching – all that is
contained in the gospels, openly, plainly and without ambiguity, surely it
must teach us something about how we are to interact with God’s Word –
by taking it in it’s plain and common sense. This, as we shall
demonstrate later, is the ‘literal method’.
The history of allegorical interpretation can be traced back to Greek
philosophy. An early Biblical interpreter was Philo, born circa 20BC into
one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Alexandria,
Egypt, the centre of Greek philosophy and learning. The great
Alexandrian school provided fertile soil from which allegorical
interpretation grew and spread. Philo was among the first to marry
Greek philosophy with the writings of Moses. According to Alfred
Edersheim, Philo “names not fewer than sixty-four Greek writers; and he
either alludes to, or quotes frequently from, such sources as, Homer,
Hesiod, Pindar, Solon, the great Greek tragedians, Plato, and others.”
Describing the method Philo employed, Edersheim notes, “Here, then,
was the principle of a twofold interpretation of the word of God. – the
literal and the allegorical.” Regarding the ‘laws’ for allegorical
interpretation, he says of Philo, that they can sometimes “exclude the
literal interpretation, while others admit it by the side of the higher
meaning. To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set
aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the deity, anything
unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason.” (The Life and Times of
Jesus The Messiah, p.28-29). Philo’s erroneous method of allegorical
interpretation led to a number of erroneous beliefs, highlighting the
importance of correct interpretation. A faulty method of interpretation will
lead to a faulty belief, which will have a detrimental impact on our
Christian life. As we have seen, Philo was greatly influenced by Greek
philosophy, particularly Plato whom he called ‘the great’. One of Philo’s
beliefs that was rooted in Greek and pagan philosophy was his view of
the pre-existence of the human soul as an angelic spirit, and the
punishment for sin was for the spirit to be confined in a human body of
flesh (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, p.319). Philo
shared this belief with Plato, as well as another highly influential early
Bible teacher, Origen.
Origen, born around 185 AD, was also from Alexandria in Egypt. He was
a pupil of Clement of Alexandria, who believed Greek philosophy was of
divine origin, and to whom the rapid rise and predominance of the school
of Alexandria is accredited. Origen took over the headship of the
Alexandrian school from Clement, and it was Origen who establish a
more systematic framework for allegorical interpretation, teaching that all
Scripture has a threefold meaning, the flesh, soul and spirit, the spiritual
meaning being the pinnacle. Williston Walker says of Origen, “In Origen
the process was complete which had long been interpreting Christian
truths in terms of Hellenistic [Greek] thinking. He gave to the Christian
system the fullest scientific standing, as tested by the science of that
age, which was almost entirely compromised in philosophy and ethics.
His philosophic standpoint was essentially Platonic and Stoic, with a
decided leaning towards the rising Neo-Platonism… These philosophic
principles he sought to bring into harmony with the Scriptures, as his
great Hebrew fellow townsman, Philo, had done, by allegorical
interpretation of the Bible… This allegorical system allowed Origen to
read practically anything he wished into the Scriptures.” (A History of the
Christian Church, revised edition, p.75). Pinpointed in Walker’s last
sentence is the profound danger, that, with allegorical interpretation,
truth is to be found in the mind of the interpreter, not in the Scriptures as
given by the Holy Spirit. Scripture must interpret Scripture.
Following not too long after Origen was Augustine of Hippo (born 354
AD), one of the four ‘outstanding doctors’ of the Roman Catholic church.
Augustine’s writings on the end times are highly allegorical, full of
imagination and absolutely dismissive of Christ’s literal kingdom on earth
– the millennial kingdom. The interpretation of Revelation chapter 20 in
his book ‘City of God’ is quite mind boggling. For Augustine, the ‘abyss’
in Revelation 20:3 “symbolizes the innumerable multitude of the impious”
and the sealing of it “signifies that God wished it to be kept a secret who
belongs to the devil’s party, and who does not.” (City of God, p.908).
Similar ways of interpreting prophecy were adopted by many of the
Reformers, who looked back to Augustine for much of there guidance.
The men of the Reformation period are to be applauded for their
insistence on the grammatical-historical interpretation of certain areas of
Scripture. However, their literal method was not consistently applied to
the prophetic portions of Scripture, they took the Augustinian approach.
This partly explains the figurative method of interpretation of prophecy
as being so widely used in modern day Reformed circles, especially in
the area of prophecy. Noted Reformed Bible teacher and Bishop, JC
Ryle, acknowledged, “The Protestant Reformers were not perfect. On no
point, I venture to say, were they so much in the wrong as in the
interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.” (Prophecy, p. 220. Previously
published as ‘Coming Events and Present Duties’).
As for the present day, the allegorical method is to be found in the
teachings of influential men like Tim Keller, who believes the theory of
‘Theistic evolution’ (the divine guidance of an evolutionary process). In
his first book, ‘The Reason for God’ Keller writes, “The relationship of
science to the Bible hinges not only on how we read the scientific record
but how we interpret certain key biblical passages such as Genesis 1.”
(p.93). He continues, “I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and
is therefore a song… There will always be debates about how to
interpret some passages – including Genesis 1. But it is false logic to
argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it
can be.” Keller concludes, “For the record I think God guided some kind
of process of natural selection”. (p.94). Here, Keller denies the literal
truth of Genesis 1, possibly, in an attempt to harmonise ‘science’ and
Scripture. In Keller’s statement we hear the echoes of Philo resonating
down through the ages to the present time, 2000 years later.
B. The literal method (or, grammatical-historical method).
Those who adopt the literal method of interpretation are often accused of
denying the use of figures and symbols in the Bible. This is not true with
the vast majority who interpret Scripture literally. Most ‘literalists’
acknowledge the common use of symbols and figures of speech in the
Bible and see this as God communicating to us in ways we are familiar
with. Symbols and figures of speech are woven into the fabric of our
everyday language. I’m sure you noticed the example in the previous
sentence, I’m also sure you did not assume that language has any
physical property into which something can be woven, it is figurative
language and we can all understand it as such. The point being made is
that, often, common sense informs us if literal or figurative language is
being used. God uses language and communication methods He knows
we are familiar with, after all, He is the greatest communicator! However,
in the Bible, symbols and figure are used to convey literal truth.
Dwight Pentecost defines the literal method of interpretation as, “that
method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would
have in normal, ordinary, customary usage.” (Things to Come, p.9).
Pentecost goes on to quote Bernard Raam, who adds, “The “literal”
meaning of a word is the basic, customary, social designation of that
word. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or expression is one
that arises after the literal designation and is dependent upon it for it’s
existence.” (p.9).
Raam outlines strong evidence for the literal method. “In defence of the
literal approach it may be argued:
(a) That the literal meaning of a sentence is normal approach in all
languages…
(b) That all secondary meanings of documents, parables, types,
allegories, and symbols depend for their very existence on the previous
literal meaning of the terms…
(c) That the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when
interpreted literally…
(d) That the literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of
speech, symbols, allegories and types; but if the nature of the sentence
so demands, it readily yields to the second sense…
(e) That this method is the only sane and safe check on the imagination
of man… (Things to Come, p.9-10).
Another vital pointer to guide interpretation is how the New Testament
interprets the Old – literally. It is especially important to see the literal
fulfilment of prophecy. Is there a single prophecy concerning Christ’s first
coming, which He did not fulfil literally? Why would the prophecies
concerning His second coming differ? Prophecy is a great evangelistic
tool, but how can it be taken seriously by unbelievers, especial Jewish
unbelievers in Christ, if we declare “Jesus Christ literally fulfilled these
prophecies, but those future prophecies are just figures of speech, He is
not really coming with the clouds and He won’t literally reign from
Jerusalem on earth over the nations for a thousand years.” Prophecy
depends on a literal interpretation to prove itself. If prophecy can be
spiritualised into a number of different possible meanings in the
imagination of the interpreter, then prophecy loses it’s potency, purpose
and usefulness as a witness to the Bible being of divine origin.
The history of literal interpretation, as previously mentioned, is rooted
and demonstrated in the Bible itself. The New Testament treats the Old
as literal history, with literal places, people, time periods and even
prophecy is taken literally. Let’s take the first fulfilment of prophecy
mentioned in the New Testament in the Gospel of Matthew. (Not
including, but not forgetting, the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy that
Messiah would be born the Son of David, proven by the genealogy given
in Matthew chapter 1). In Matthew 1:22-23 we see the literal fulfilment of
the miraculous virgin birth of the Messiah, as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.
Any argument concerning the improbability of an end times prophecy
being fulfilled literally, due to an unreal scenario being needed, is
baseless. Was there any more unreal scenario than a virgin giving birth?
Let us not doubt! Remember the words of Gabriel to encourage Mary,
“For nothing [Lit. ‘not any word’] will be impossible with God.” (Luke
1:37). Often, people’s view of what seems improbable forces a dismissal
of a literal interpretation. As we have seen, although Paul teaches that
Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac have symbolic meanings, the Apostle
never denies the historical literal account of the people, places and
events. The Bible does use types and shadows but they are built upon
real people, places and events, a literal interpretation. The New
Testament consistently interprets the Old Testament literally.
With the odd exception of people such as Philo, the Jewish method of
Biblical interpretation in the first century AD was almost predominantly
literal. F. W. Farrar observes, “many of them [Rabbis] wholly despised
and discouraged Greek learning… Rabi Akiba says that no Israelite
would be a partaker of eternal life who read the books of the Gentiles.
Gamaliel was the only prominent Rabbi who permitted his pupils to read
them – a circumstance to which we may possibly owe the [Greek]
classical quotations of Paul.” (The Life of Christ, p.661-662). Richard
Longenecker states, “It need not be argued at any length that Judaism
often took the words of the Old Testament quite literally.” (Biblical
Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, p.28). Pentecost writes, “The
prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ
was certainly the literal method of interpretation. Horne presents it thus:
The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be
historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of
the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the
time of Christ and his apostles… The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in
the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old
Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was distinguished among
those Jews who practiced this method; he defends it as something new
and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews.
Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he was compelled to
comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation; for this
method did not prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in
Palestine, where Jesus taught.” (Things to Come, p.17-18. Thomas
Hartwell Horne quote cited from, An Introduction to the Critical Study
and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol 1, p.324).
The school of Antioch, the other influential school of interpretation in the
Patristic era, differed great from the Alexandrian school in that it majored
on historical, literal interpretation of the Scriptures, without denying
typology. Notable figures from this school include Theophilus of Antioch
(ca. 115-188 AD), Diodorus of Tarsus (died 393 AD) and Theodor of
Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428). Due to a number of factors, the school of
Antioch began to lose it’s influence as the Alexandrian school began to
dominate.
As the Alexandrian school’s philosophy of allegorising spread in breadth
and influence, being adopted by the Roman Catholic church, much truth
in Scripture was veiled and the Dark Ages followed. It was a thousand
years later when a return to the literal method, the grammatical-historical
method including a return to the original languages of Scripture, that light
appeared again in the west in the form of the Reformation. As mistaken
as some Reformers were in a number of their views, literalist principles
were rescued. The Medieval church had held to a four-fold method of
interpretation, literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical (mystical
references to the afterlife). Luther broke away from this practice and
adhered to the principle of a single fundamental meaning. Luther also
taught the right of each individual believer to interpret the Bible for
themselves, leading to the need for the Scriptures to be translated in
other languages. (Biblical Interpretation, Mickelsen, p.58). In the
centuries following the Reformation period, philosophy, romanticism,
rationalism etc. influenced the church and therefore it’s methods of
interpretation. However, the literal method also continued and most
protestant churches would subscribe, at least in principle, to this method,
but how consistently it is adhered to is highly questionable. Much
modern-day interpretation regarding Christ’s return which is to be found
in many commentaries and preached in numerous churches, reflects
that of Augustine’s allegorical methods, 1600 years ago.
Let us ask again these questions: 1) Does my interpretation fit the
context of the surrounding passage? 2) Does my interpretation
contradict or harmonise with the rest of Scripture? 3) Does the words
and phrases in their plain and common sense make sense? 4) Does my
interpretation obey or violate the commonly understood rules of
language? Time and time again, by asking these questions, the
interpreter will see the literal method prevails and leads to a correct
understanding of Scripture. It is the only method guided and guarded by
Scripture itself. It protects against the imaginations and best guesses of
men, which although often well intentioned, will only lead to a lack of
assurance, or a false assurance in the priceless truth to be found in
God’s Word.