Other Models of Bible Interpretation
After explaining (briefly) my mode of interpreting the Bible, I thought I’d inform the reader of some of the other forms (or modes, theories) that are used to attempt to understand God’s written word. So, this page is a continuation of my previous post.
I’m not well-read enough to know ALL forms of biblical hermeneutics, so I’ll just share what I do know. This page will deal with 4 major types of hermeneutics (Bible Interpretation).
Before I launch into these methods, I’ll quickly share that how we view the Word of God is going to shape the way that we accept it. Many folks have a very deep understanding of the Bible, academically, but do not take it to be sacred. They do not hold it in high enough esteem to allow it to influence their lives. My approach is that it is sacred, and that it does hold influence over my life. Still, some may allow the scriptures to be sacred but they may hold to a completely different method of understanding the scriptures than I (or others) do. Hopefully, you’ll see what I mean by the end of this page.
Please keep in mind as we progress that all of these methods exist to try to find the truth of scripture. My assumption here is that all adherents of any or all of these modes are acting in good faith and completely respect the Word of God, holding it in high esteem. With that said, let’s begin.
We are going to look at these forms of hermeneutics: Literal, Moral, Allegorical, and Anagogical.
Literal Interpretation
In this case, “literal” is an unfortunate word. (It’s unfortunate that “literal” is the word used for it.) Here’s what I mean: When one reads something literally, usually, they take the words to mean exactly (literally) what their precise meaning is. As an example, let’s look at Psalm 91.
1 Those who live in the shelter of the Most High
will find rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 This I declare about the Lord:
He alone is my refuge, my place of safety;
he is my God, and I trust him.
3 For he will rescue you from every trap
and protect you from deadly disease.
4 He will cover you with his feathers.
He will shelter you with his wings.
His faithful promises are your armor and protection.
Now, if we are being literal, we might think that God has wings with feathers. We might also think that we have to follow Him around trying to stay within the boundary of His shadow. We might also think that He only rescues us from traps and disease (deadly ones only). And do His promises turn into physical armor for us to wear? Sounds silly, right? But there are groups out there (really out there) that hold to this kind of interpretation when it suits them.
My own interpretation method, Plain Meaning, falls into the category of Literal Interpretation. Now, I do not use a strictly literal interpretation unless it’s obvious that I should. As explained in the first page of this post, I take the words for how they are most naturally meant, according to the context, and accounting for all of the figures of speech that I know of, as well as the other points of influence. So I don’t read the above quote with any of the silliness shown above. God is not a physical Being, with wings and feathers; He is Spirit. He casts no shadow, because He emanates light that is greater than any other source of light and He is infinite in presence. He protects us from much more than what is mentioned. His promises are like protective armor. With all of this, do I disregard the message of Psalms 91? Do I consider it unreliable because it doesn’t fit in with what a person might consider literal truth? Of course not! It is reliable. It just says things in a way that is more poetic than literal. The truth behind the poetry is sound and dependable.
Moral Interpretation
To use a moral interpretation is to pull out the bits presented in order to learn ethical lessons from them. Some people might call this practice “Application”. We can use this method alongside the literal approach (or the others) because it is a way of being concerned with the moral lesson of the text.
This kind of approach is very common toward all forms of literature. Fables for children are produced for just this sort of goal (as well as giving them a safe means of dealing with their fears).
If we look hard enough, we can probably find a moral lesson in just about any situation. So, all that this method is about is what most of us do regularly anyway—certainly while reading the Bible.
With this in mind, moral interpretation does not collide with any other form of interpretation, it works in cooperation with them all.
Allegorical Interpretation
This method can either work in unity with the literal approach or it can be at odds with it; it depends on how narrowly (or fully) the approach is used. To illustrate this method, I’ll point to a real-world scenario that exists in Christendom.
There are three main beliefs, or doctrines, concerning the return of Christ (regarding it’s timing): Premillennial, Postmillennial, and Amillennial. In the Premillennial view, Jesus comes back before the millennium begins. In the Postmillennial view, Jesus returns after the millennium. In the Amillennial view, there is no millennium—it’s allegorical.
For those of us who believe in a real, physical return of Jesus to Earth, this doctrine has real world consequences. Personally, I don’t want His return to be allegory; I want it to be actual. But in order for someone to believe the Bible and still think that He will not return to us in physical form, they must approach the Word with an Allegorical Interpretation. As you may have guessed, I’m not going to go that way.
I have seen, by way of this example and others, some really wacky interpretations of the Bible that come out of this approach. To me, it’s as if reality has left the building. But that’s when people take this approach to its extreme. Let me explain.
As mentioned in the previous page, I take allegory into consideration when seeking to understand the scriptures. I happily allow allegory to exist, but only to the extent that the message of the text is not altered or violated. In the example of Christ’s return, there are far too many references of it being a literal, physical event for me to allow it to be merely allegory. And as far as that goes, there are too many mentions of it being prior to the millennium for me to accept the Postmillennial view either.
I hold to the credo, “Words have meaning”. And, unfortunately, the Allegorical Interpretation method goes too far afield of the regular usage of words and phrases for me to apply it (strictly).
Anagogical Interpretation
Also known as Mystical Interpretation, this method attempts to view biblical events in view of the life to come (the afterlife). You could also say that it “Spiritualizes” the text. This approach is demonstrated in the Jewish Kabbala, which employs all kinds of techniques, including numerology, to place mystical influence onto the text. In Roman Catholicism, the reverence of Mary could fall into this category.
I don’t deny that there are references in the Bible to the afterlife. That would be a silly notion, given the reams of information that it delivers on the subject. Nor do I deny that there is something somewhat mystical, if you will, to the scriptures. I don’t use the word “mystical” in my point of view because mysticism (or its elements) is flatly forbidden by God. Instead, I say that the Bible is “supernatural”. It can have a supernatural effect on my life simply by reading it on a regular basis. Is this just semantics? Not really. In mysticism there is an emphasis on the abilities of the creatures to influence things they normally could not influence (like weather or matter); in supernatural spirituality the emphasis is purely on the Creator’s abilities and our faith in His will for us.
Can a person be somewhat anagogical in their approach to the scriptures? I don’t see why not, as long as they are doing so with a proper perspective of who God is and who we are. Many who profess the Lord’s salvation partake in supernatural experiences all the time. However, this should only ever be a supplement to the primary method of a more literal, plain meaning approach. Getting this backwards has the potential for complete disaster in one’s faith. If we chase after the experience, while neglecting the proper understanding, we open ourselves to deep waters that can pull us under.
Other Mentions
Just to be thorough, I’ll make quick mention of a few other methods that are out there today.
Historical-Critical Method
Becoming more and more popular is the notion that history (as we have it) is a product of fallible man spinning the narrative to suit his own desires. This is to say that the historical-critical approach sees history as being subjective, as opposed to objective. However true this may or may not be for much of what we read in textbooks and encyclopedias, it is unfortunate to have such a notion forced upon the Holy Bible, which is the very definition of “truth”.
Therefore, the historical-critical method should not put its mitts on the Word of God. To do so is an abomination, in my humble view. After all, this historical-critical view is neither historical nor critical (like New Mexico isn’t exactly New, and not really Mexico). It’s basically an excuse to make up whatever one wants and call it “academic”. I recommend steering clear of this approach.
Existentialism
If your’e not familiar with existential thought, it basically says that we little humans can only know so much and it’s not that much. It even goes further and says the we CANNOT know very much. Of course, this whole approach is very subjective and by its nature defies definition. But in terms of understanding the Bible and its message, the existentialist says he can’t understand it. It’s a bit defeatist, if you ask me.
An agnostic (one who follows agnosticism) says that a person cannot know God or His will. I see existentialism as nothing more than a new strain of this pathetic, defeatist view.
The truth is that we CAN know God (I know I do). We can (and do) know His proclaimed will for us (as found in the Bible). To follow this kind of intellectual buffoonery is a bit offensive to those who do understand the message and who do care about the ramifications of sticking one’s existential head in the academic sand. Anyone in that position should know how vulnerable their intellectual butt really is. It might be cute for a little child to hide under the blanket and pretend that angry mommy isn’t there, but to do this as an adult defies logic.
Structuralism
This method is not as black or white as the previous two (ironically). The method can either be legitimate or flawed, it depends on the length (measure) to which the reader goes with it.
In viewing the Bible with a structural lens, one can be served well. Seeing the Bible as a complete whole, rather than individual parts that have been pieced together, one can see the continuity of the entire message of it. In this view the Old Testament and the New Testament work together as a complete picture of God, His people, His will, and His plans for humanity. This approach actually works very well with God’s Word, as it really is a comprehensive, unified message from cover to cover, despite the diversity of its parts’ origins.
However, the way that this turns sideways on the one using it is when the reader sees concepts and events presented as solid chunks of information. It’s kind of like having a picture made into large pixels with very little definition, or using tiles to form a mosaic picture. Subtleties, nuances, and distinctions that should be there tend to get lost in the mix and become invisible to the user of this method. So the danger is that a detail which is grouped in with other details is overlooked, as if it were never there. As you can imagine, important details are sometimes missed and the reader falls into doctrinal error.
I see dispensationalism as falling into this trap. Dispensationalism views God’s revelation to man as occurring in chunks of progressive revelation over the course of history. Unfortunately, these chunks aren’t always as clearly manifested as the adherents seem to see them as being. I have seen serious error come from the dispensationalism camp over the years.
Doctrine in General
In fact, there are many “camps” of doctrinal thought that tend to group God’s revelation into blocks of information. Some can be true and some can be false, but most have a bit of truth and a bit of error. When a person latches on to a particular doctrine, it’s best if the person uses all of the scrutiny and logic they can muster to determine if the entire discipline is coherent and true or not. As for me, I tend to take facets of various doctrines and meld them together with others.
Example: I am neither a true Calvinist nor an Arminian. I believe that God is sovereign and picks whom He chooses (Calvin) but believe that man has been given a degree of sovereignty from God to reject God’s salvation (Arminius). A real-world implication of this might be to not see evangelism as necessary (if following Calvin), because God will choose that person no matter what mankind does; or that evangelism is not needed (if following Arminius), because the cross covers all people regardless of their knowledge of its power. These examples are not shown to imply that everyone who adheres to either of these systems thinks the way I have just characterized. I understand that there are many, many, many adherents to both who rightly share the message of the cross of Christ with whomever they can. The point is that strictly adhering to any school of thought brings with it the possibility of not seeing the forest for the trees, i.e. missing the big picture of God’s revelation by placing too much importance on the wrong details.
Keep a close watch on how you live and on your teaching. Stay true to what is right for the sake of your own salvation and the salvation of those who hear you.
1 Timothy 4:16
Doctrine is (like the Word it studies) a double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Only, doctrine can cut the one wielding it as readily as the one it’s intended to correct when used incorrectly or poorly forged.
Please be careful how you look into the Word of God. But look, all the same.
In His love,
Gary
