03-03-2007, 11:11 PM
I wanted to say a few words about biblical interpretation. We should think somewhat about method. How exactly do we figure out what the Bible means in one passage or another? Surely there are correct ways of interpreting the Bible and incorrect ways.
One popular way of interpreting scripture is the allegorical method.
An allegory is a symbolic representation of one thing by another. Normally this method takes texts, discards their plain and literal meaning, and then makes the words only symbols of what was originally stated.
There is actually New Testament precedent for such an approach. The apostles sometimes took certain physical people, places, things or events of an earlier time and gave them an ultimate spiritual application in the present or future. For example, the Old Testament high priest Aaron was an allegory, or symbol, of our spiritual high priest Jesus Christ (Hebrews 5:4-5).
Some people have felt that because the apostles used this method, at times, that we too are free to engage in this sort of speculative enterprise. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether only the inspired writers of the Bible were free to engage in this sort of interpretation or whether God left it up to us to impart whatever meaning we so desire into a text, I wish to address first the question of whether the allegorical method actually leads us to the original meaning of the text.
You know, just because Aaron is a symbol of Jesus Christ, this does not mean that Aaron actually was Jesus Christ. And just because Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a symbol of God giving up his only-begotten son, this does not mean that Abraham actually was God and that Isaac actually was Jesus.
So the allegorical method does not lead us to the original meaning of the text. It only gives us an additional, spiritual meaning, a meaning that was not there to begin with.
Because of its nature, the allegorical method leaves all authority in the hands of the interpreter. He or she has no one to check the interpretation and see if it is right or wrong. Every person trying to interpret the text will come away with his own interpretation, and it can't be proven correct or incorrect.
Some believe that by using cross-references, i.e., finding other spots in the Bible where a word or phrase is used symbolically, one receives the authority to interpret a passage in a symbolic or figurative way. However, since most words and phrases are used both symbolically and literally in the Bible, the interpreter is still giving himself the authority to determine that the words or phrases in a given passage are symbolic and not literal.
The allegorical method turns much of the Bible into parables, i.e., fiction (at least from a historical point of view), because none of the words have meaning as they are read, or as they were recorded. The interpreter makes the words means different things than what they actually say.
Most people that are allegorists do not use a completely allegorical approach. They take things in their easy literal sense until it is too hard to understand, to hard to believe, or doesn't fit their thinking, and then they shift to the allegorical.
Oswald T. Allis (in PROPHECY AND THE CHURCH) suggests that the term "spiritual interpretation" is better than allegorical and argues for a combination of the allegorical and literal approach.
These are the rules he sets forth:
1. "Whether you should interpret a passage figuratively or literally depends solely on which gives the true meaning."
Um...how do we know what the true meaning is until we find out how to interpret the text? He seems to be assuming we know the true meaning before we start.
2. "The only way prophecy can be understood literally is when its literal meaning is clear and obvious."
I don't know about this one. Did the first century Jews think the prophecies about the Messiah were clear and obvious?
3. "The interpretation of any prophecy hinges on the fulfilment of it."
So we don't know how to interpret a prophecy until it's over?
Hmm. I wonder what I would do if my own kids decided to interpret my house rules as allegorical.
As you can see, I am skeptical of the allegorical method. If one uses it to get a personal meaning out of scripture, while realizing that it is not the original meaning, then fine. More power to him.
But let's talk about a better method of interpretation. Instead of superimposing a meaning on it, an objective interpreter should try to discover the writer's intended meaning (which is really the only true meaning).
What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. In other words, meaning is determined by the author, and it is discovered by readers. Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). Our method of interpreting scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning that a statement had for the writer and the first hearers or readers.
So the first thing to do is look at context. And by context, I don't mean the whole Bible. I don't mean look first in Jude to find out what Exodus means. Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole Bible. You can't divorce a verse from the verses around it.
Now, yes, there is both an immediate context and a broader context. The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted first in interpreting Bible verses. The broader context is the whole Bible. But the farther away one gets from the immediate context, the weaker the evidence for the interpretation. Thus, if I find the answer to a question of interpretation in the same book, my case is stronger than if I find it in a different book. And if I am interpreting a passage from the New Testament, my case is stronger if I find my evidence in the New Testament than if I find it in the Old. The closer I am in context, the better.
Why do I say this? Because the inspired writers of scripture cannot be taken out of their cultural and historical context. If we want to find out what they meant, when they said it, we should go to them first, and to their closes associates second, and to people of their own generation third, and to their own people of a different generation fourth.
Historical considerations are especially important in properly interpreting the Bible. The Christian faith is based on something that happened in history. These events are recorded for us in the New Testament Gospels, documents that are based on eyewitness testimony and written very close in time to the events about which they report. So when interpreting biblical passages, we must take into consideration the time it was written and the other aspects of historical context.
We also have to recognize that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.
Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation).
An incorrect genre judgment will lead one astray in interpreting scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative. A wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text. In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical writer was intending to communicate to the reader.
Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. Thus, when not dealing with poetry or apocalyptic writing, it is best to interpret the texts literally. What do I mean by "literally"? A literal method of interpreting scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage.
Now, someone could argue that, with God's holy spirit, we don't need to rely on any method, because he will reveal the meaning to us, regardless.
Yes, it is true that scripture tells us that we are to rely on the holy spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11). No doubt about that. But is it really so that we do not need to do anything, to employ no method whatsoever in order to understand? Are we to let God do all the work?
Hardly. Proverbs 2 tells us that we are to put a great deal of work into gaining wisdom, and it isn't only through prayer. Thus it is necessary to employ good and proper methods of interpretation on the Bible in order to understand it. And the spirit will help us the rest of the way.
Just because the holy spirit lightens our path does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the spirit is called "the spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), it will not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth. And the literal method of interpretation is itself a test of truth. Illumination on rational issues comes into the minds of God's people, not to non-rational faculties like our emotions or our feelings. While the emotions are an important part of Christianity, and the Bible is intended to reach our hearts, our understanding it is a rational endeavor.
So, while allegorical interpretation does have legitimate usage, it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the text. I should also mention that its self-centered approach actually originated with the pagan mystics, and then adopted by some Jewish and Christian philosophers. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition:
"Allegorical interpretation is a hermeneutical (interpretive) method used to uncover hidden or symbolic meanings of a Biblical text. Rooted in the techniques developed by Greek thinkers who attempted to overcome the problems posed by literal interpretations of ancient Greek myths, the allegorical method was further developed by Jewish scholars, such as Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD, and Christian thinkers, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Though other methods were often used, the allegorical method was dominant until late medieval times. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected, for the most part, the allegorical method and returned to the more literal interpretation of the Bible."
"The allegorical method attempts to overcome the difficulties of morally perplexing Biblical passages and to harmonize them with certain traditions and accepted teachings of the synagogue or church. By assigning to each feature of a text a hidden, symbolic, or mystical meaning beyond the primary meaning that the words convey in their literal sense, the allegorical interpretation seeks to make the text more comprehensible, acceptable, and relevant to the present."
One popular way of interpreting scripture is the allegorical method.
An allegory is a symbolic representation of one thing by another. Normally this method takes texts, discards their plain and literal meaning, and then makes the words only symbols of what was originally stated.
There is actually New Testament precedent for such an approach. The apostles sometimes took certain physical people, places, things or events of an earlier time and gave them an ultimate spiritual application in the present or future. For example, the Old Testament high priest Aaron was an allegory, or symbol, of our spiritual high priest Jesus Christ (Hebrews 5:4-5).
Some people have felt that because the apostles used this method, at times, that we too are free to engage in this sort of speculative enterprise. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether only the inspired writers of the Bible were free to engage in this sort of interpretation or whether God left it up to us to impart whatever meaning we so desire into a text, I wish to address first the question of whether the allegorical method actually leads us to the original meaning of the text.
You know, just because Aaron is a symbol of Jesus Christ, this does not mean that Aaron actually was Jesus Christ. And just because Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a symbol of God giving up his only-begotten son, this does not mean that Abraham actually was God and that Isaac actually was Jesus.
So the allegorical method does not lead us to the original meaning of the text. It only gives us an additional, spiritual meaning, a meaning that was not there to begin with.
Because of its nature, the allegorical method leaves all authority in the hands of the interpreter. He or she has no one to check the interpretation and see if it is right or wrong. Every person trying to interpret the text will come away with his own interpretation, and it can't be proven correct or incorrect.
Some believe that by using cross-references, i.e., finding other spots in the Bible where a word or phrase is used symbolically, one receives the authority to interpret a passage in a symbolic or figurative way. However, since most words and phrases are used both symbolically and literally in the Bible, the interpreter is still giving himself the authority to determine that the words or phrases in a given passage are symbolic and not literal.
The allegorical method turns much of the Bible into parables, i.e., fiction (at least from a historical point of view), because none of the words have meaning as they are read, or as they were recorded. The interpreter makes the words means different things than what they actually say.
Most people that are allegorists do not use a completely allegorical approach. They take things in their easy literal sense until it is too hard to understand, to hard to believe, or doesn't fit their thinking, and then they shift to the allegorical.
Oswald T. Allis (in PROPHECY AND THE CHURCH) suggests that the term "spiritual interpretation" is better than allegorical and argues for a combination of the allegorical and literal approach.
These are the rules he sets forth:
1. "Whether you should interpret a passage figuratively or literally depends solely on which gives the true meaning."
Um...how do we know what the true meaning is until we find out how to interpret the text? He seems to be assuming we know the true meaning before we start.
2. "The only way prophecy can be understood literally is when its literal meaning is clear and obvious."
I don't know about this one. Did the first century Jews think the prophecies about the Messiah were clear and obvious?
3. "The interpretation of any prophecy hinges on the fulfilment of it."
So we don't know how to interpret a prophecy until it's over?
Hmm. I wonder what I would do if my own kids decided to interpret my house rules as allegorical.
As you can see, I am skeptical of the allegorical method. If one uses it to get a personal meaning out of scripture, while realizing that it is not the original meaning, then fine. More power to him.
But let's talk about a better method of interpretation. Instead of superimposing a meaning on it, an objective interpreter should try to discover the writer's intended meaning (which is really the only true meaning).
What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. In other words, meaning is determined by the author, and it is discovered by readers. Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). Our method of interpreting scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning that a statement had for the writer and the first hearers or readers.
So the first thing to do is look at context. And by context, I don't mean the whole Bible. I don't mean look first in Jude to find out what Exodus means. Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole Bible. You can't divorce a verse from the verses around it.
Now, yes, there is both an immediate context and a broader context. The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted first in interpreting Bible verses. The broader context is the whole Bible. But the farther away one gets from the immediate context, the weaker the evidence for the interpretation. Thus, if I find the answer to a question of interpretation in the same book, my case is stronger than if I find it in a different book. And if I am interpreting a passage from the New Testament, my case is stronger if I find my evidence in the New Testament than if I find it in the Old. The closer I am in context, the better.
Why do I say this? Because the inspired writers of scripture cannot be taken out of their cultural and historical context. If we want to find out what they meant, when they said it, we should go to them first, and to their closes associates second, and to people of their own generation third, and to their own people of a different generation fourth.
Historical considerations are especially important in properly interpreting the Bible. The Christian faith is based on something that happened in history. These events are recorded for us in the New Testament Gospels, documents that are based on eyewitness testimony and written very close in time to the events about which they report. So when interpreting biblical passages, we must take into consideration the time it was written and the other aspects of historical context.
We also have to recognize that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.
Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation).
An incorrect genre judgment will lead one astray in interpreting scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative. A wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text. In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical writer was intending to communicate to the reader.
Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. Thus, when not dealing with poetry or apocalyptic writing, it is best to interpret the texts literally. What do I mean by "literally"? A literal method of interpreting scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage.
Now, someone could argue that, with God's holy spirit, we don't need to rely on any method, because he will reveal the meaning to us, regardless.
Yes, it is true that scripture tells us that we are to rely on the holy spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11). No doubt about that. But is it really so that we do not need to do anything, to employ no method whatsoever in order to understand? Are we to let God do all the work?
Hardly. Proverbs 2 tells us that we are to put a great deal of work into gaining wisdom, and it isn't only through prayer. Thus it is necessary to employ good and proper methods of interpretation on the Bible in order to understand it. And the spirit will help us the rest of the way.
Just because the holy spirit lightens our path does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the spirit is called "the spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), it will not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth. And the literal method of interpretation is itself a test of truth. Illumination on rational issues comes into the minds of God's people, not to non-rational faculties like our emotions or our feelings. While the emotions are an important part of Christianity, and the Bible is intended to reach our hearts, our understanding it is a rational endeavor.
So, while allegorical interpretation does have legitimate usage, it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the text. I should also mention that its self-centered approach actually originated with the pagan mystics, and then adopted by some Jewish and Christian philosophers. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition:
"Allegorical interpretation is a hermeneutical (interpretive) method used to uncover hidden or symbolic meanings of a Biblical text. Rooted in the techniques developed by Greek thinkers who attempted to overcome the problems posed by literal interpretations of ancient Greek myths, the allegorical method was further developed by Jewish scholars, such as Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD, and Christian thinkers, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Though other methods were often used, the allegorical method was dominant until late medieval times. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected, for the most part, the allegorical method and returned to the more literal interpretation of the Bible."
"The allegorical method attempts to overcome the difficulties of morally perplexing Biblical passages and to harmonize them with certain traditions and accepted teachings of the synagogue or church. By assigning to each feature of a text a hidden, symbolic, or mystical meaning beyond the primary meaning that the words convey in their literal sense, the allegorical interpretation seeks to make the text more comprehensible, acceptable, and relevant to the present."