"God is a spirit and all his wordes are spirituall. His literal sense is spirituall." William Tyndale1
Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. The key factor for a hermeneutic is that it have rigor, discipline, and consistency. How we approach language is foundational to how we determine meaning. Language is of two sorts; it is either figurative or literal. An example of literal (or normal) meaning is the following passage by Matthew:
"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ..." (Matt. 2.1).
This is a simple historical statement. The literal or normal meaning and interpretation is that Jesus was born in a place called Bethlehem (a real geographical place) when Herod (a historical personage who reigned in a real time) was king (a real position) over Judea (a real geographical place). By means of such a statement, Matthew rooted Jesus' birth in a real place in a real time. Contrast Matthew's literal statement to the following by Jesus:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." (Jn. 10.7).
We understand that Jesus was not saying that he was a literal, wooden door in a sheep pen. We understand that he was using a figure of speech (cf. Jn. 10.6), a metaphor. But even though he used figurative language he communicated a literal truth, namely, that he is the entrance way for salvation. Just as a wooden door is the entrance to a house or to a sheep pen, Jesus is the "door", i.e. entrance through whom God and salvation is found. Jesus was not talking about animals, i.e. sheep, but human beings. The sheep represent us.
Almost all communication is literal. Think about daily conversations. We talk about going out to dinner, watching a movie, what our children are doing, ongoing projects, what we're reading, what's going on at church, politics, sports, our job etc. These communications are literal. Were it not so, we would find it almost impossible to communicate. We employ conventions regularly in speech without thinking of them as such. A new car is called a "nice set of wheels". We use expressions such as, "She's the apple of his eye". In doing so we understand that we're talking about a whole car and not just its wheels. We know that someone's eye does not have an apple in it but that the apple stands as an object of appeal and favor. Figurative language is, in most cases, readily understood as such by its context. It can also be identified by the kind of literature. For example, poetry lends itself to figurative language. But what is important is to remember that figurative language always communicates literal truth. When Isaiah penned the poetic line,
"All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field" (Is. 40.6)
we understand that we are mortal. The literal truth is not that flesh is grass--that makes no sense--but that human beings have a temporal life upon the earth. Isaiah conveys literal truth through figurative language.
Most difficulties and confusions arise in the interpretation of Scripture when one neglects its context. The guiding principle of sound interpretation is that a passage should be taken literally (that is, in its normal sense) unless strong reasons are present to change this rule. Without such discipline, interpretation becomes putty in an interpreter's hands. The result is erroneous or ridiculous interpretations. The interpreter needs to ask the following questions: To whom was a passage written?; When was it written?; Under what circumstances was it written?; What was its historical context?; How does the passage compare with other passages the writer has written? Other questions pertinent to interpretation include: What knowledge do the original languages shed on the passage?; Do cognate languages offer insight into the meaning of the passage?; What customs were in place?; Are idioms or conventions present?; Does archaeology shed linguistic or historical light on the passage? These are some of the many factors an interpreter must consider to determine meaning.
An excellent example of interpretive confusion concerns the meaning of David's throne. Great controversy has resulted about this subject. The controversy is whether Jesus will occupy David's throne literally in a future day or whether he is occupying it now figuratively or symbolically. A literal or normal reading of the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7), indicates that God promised to establish the throne of David forever. The Davidic Covenant was unconditional. God made the promise to David sovereignly without qualification or consideration of the failures and weaknesses of men that David's house, throne, and kingdom would endure forever. We know from history no son of David has occupied the throne of Israel since the time of Nebuchadnezzar. We also know that Mary and Joseph were members of the tribe of Judah and descendants in the royal line of David. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that God would give her son the throne of David. He said,
"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end" (Lk. 1.32-33).
A normal reading of the prophecy is that God would give Mary's son, Jesus, the Davidic throne. His reign would be over the house of Jacob, i.e. Israel, and it would last forever. Thus, we see that the promise was wholly Jewish. The context clearly indicates that Gentiles or the Church were not in view. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and his ancestor was King David. Herod occupied David's throne during Jesus' time on earth. Herod was not from the tribe of Judah. Herod was a Gentile, an Idumean. God did not put Herod on the throne, the Romans did. Jesus never occupied David's throne during his life on earth. Is he now sitting on it? Can one to Jerusalem and find Jesus sitting on a throne in Jerusalem? Jesus is sitting currently on his Father's throne. Therefore, the prophetic promise awaits fulfillment. A future day remains in which Jesus will rule from Jerusalem on David's throne and fulfill God's promise to David and reiterated to Mary.
Some maintain this throne is not literal but spiritual or symbolic. This is where one's hermeneutic comes in. What is the normal reading of the passage? Those who maintain that the throne is spiritual or symbolic have abandoned the discipline of a literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic. Do the Scriptures govern theology or does theology govern the Scriptures? If the former, then we have an inductive method of interpretation with rigor and discipline. If the latter, then the Scriptures become so elastic that the interpreter can mold them to mean whatever one wishes.
The Davidic Covenant was prophetic. How were the other prophecies associated with Jesus fulfilled? Were they fulfilled literally or figuratively? Were his garments parted and did the soldiers cast lots for them literally or figuratively? Was he betrayed literally for 30 pieces of silver? Did his disciples literally forsake him? Did Jesus literally die for us? Or was his death only figurative or symbolic? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead or did he rise only figuratively or symbolically? Some have said that Jesus rose in the hearts of his believers but did not rise physically. The answers are obvious. See Messianic Prophecies for the prophecies Jesus fulfilled literally. If we are consistent in our interpretation, then any interpretation that maintains that Jesus is now occupying the Davidic throne in heaven is nonsense. A future day remains in which he will reign from David's throne in Jerusalem as the King of the Jews.
Another example of interpretive confusion regards the events that took place at Pentecost as recorded in Acts. At Pentecost, Peter told his audience that they had crucified the Messiah. His words pierced their hearts and they responded to his message and asked Peter what they should do. Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and that they would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit. He then went on to say,
"For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2.39).
In Peter's second sermon he spoke similar words,
"And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED'" (Acts 3.24-25).
The greatest challenge in this passage is not to read future revelation into the passage. That is to say, the danger is eisegesis. What was the situation? Peter was talking to Jews. No Gentiles were present. We do well also to remember that our Lord's ministry was all Jewish with a few exceptions. All his apostles were Jews and his audience was the nation of Israel. He proclaimed the kingdom of God to the Jews (repent for the kingdom of God is near) which the Jewish prophets had proclaimed. Jesus specifically commanded his disciples not to go to Gentiles (Mt. 10.5-7). The kingdom Jesus proclaimed was Jewish. It was a kingdom in which the nation of Israel would be preeminent among all the nations of the earth. Through this kingdom Gentiles would be blessed (Zech. 8.23). This kingdom was to be the fulfillment of all that the Jewish prophets had proclaimed.
Peter's quotation of Joel proclaimed that the last days had come upon Israel as the prophets had foretold. He and his fellow apostles knew that prophecies concerning Israel were being fulfilled. Hermeneutical errors arise when expositors interpret Acts 2 and 3 with reference to the Church, the Body of Christ. Pentecost was a Jewish feast. It applied to the Jews, to national Israel, not the Church. Those who interpret Acts 2 and 3 as Church doctrine have abandoned a literal hermeneutic and have departed from the historical context by reading Church (Body of Christ) doctrine into Israel doctrine. The Church is different from Israel. How do we know? We know because the Scriptures explicitly tell us so. The Body of Christ did not exist when Peter gave his early Acts sermons. At that time, only the Jewish Church under national Israel existed. Jewish priority was still the rule. Those who believed in the Messiah were either Jews or under the aegis of the Jewish program, i.e. the kingdom of God.
Today the situation is dramatically different. In the Church, the Body of Christ, we have no distinction between Jew and Gentile and no Jewish priority. Why not? Because of Paul. God revealed to Paul the doctrine of the Church. Peter did not know about it nor the other apostles. Why not? It was still a "mystery" (Eph. 2.11-22; 3.3-9; Col. 1.26-27) when Peter gave his sermon. Peter, nor any of the other writers of the New Testament, mention the Body of Christ. What Peter knew was God's prophetic program in which Gentiles were to be blessed through Israel. To force later revelation and Church doctrine onto these early passages in Acts is to violate a literal, historic, and grammatical hermeneutic. For further study on this matter see The Church.
Maintaining a literal hermeneutic has been a challenge throughout history. One form of figurative interpretation is known as allegorical interpretation. Allegorical interpretation came to influence Christian interpreters of Scripture by way of the Greeks. The allegorical hermeneutic provided a solution to a Greek scholarly dilemma. The Greeks had an established religious heritage from Hesiod and Homer. When the philosophers and scholars began to reject the religious heritage and philosophical traditions of earlier ages they created a political problem. It was impossible for them to reject completely the writings of the earlier Greek poets due to their popularity with the people. Therefore, to preserve Hesiod and Homer in an intellectually acceptable form they allegorized their religious heritage. The stories of the gods were not to be taken literally but figuratively or allegorically. This new hermeneutic proclaimed that beyond and beneath the literal sense lay the real meaning of the story.
Using hermeneutical methods applied to Greek pagan texts, scholars, primarily from Alexandria, began to influence biblical interpretation. While Rome was the political center of the ancient world, Alexandria was the cultural center. It was one of the chief centers of scholarship with the greatest library of ancient texts and writings in the world. A large Jewish population had come to reside there and later, a great Christian population. Jewish scholars adopted the allegorical hermeneutic and used it to reconcile the biblical Scriptures with Greek philosophical tradition. The Christian church, influenced by these scholastic trends, later accepted the allegorical hermeneutic. It dominated Christian interpretation until the Reformation. The man most responsible for introducing allegorical interpretation in the Christian church was Origen (c. 185-254) who sought to harmonize New Testament theology with the teachings of Plato.
Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-425), incorporated Origen's methodology and devised a unified theology. Augustine's ideas influenced Christian interpretation for a millennium. Allegorical methodology and its effect on theology led to several false interpretations of the Scriptures including the view of eschatology (the doctrine of last things) called amillennialism. In his earlier life Augustine held a pre-millennial eschatological viewpoint as had almost all the earliest Church fathers. As Augustine systematized his theology under allegorical methodology, he abandoned premillenialism and became an amillennialist. According to amillennialism, no literal millennium or kingdom of God exists in which Christ will personally reign as Israel's king for a thousand years. The amillennialist interprets the "millennium" as the present Church age. In other words, the millennium is now and began when God formed the Church. It is identical to the Church age.
Throughout the Middle Ages, allegorical methodology ruled. During this time the belief that Israel through the rejection of their Messiah had been irrevocably replaced by the Church solidified. Because of this allegorical interpretation, the Church became the inheritors of the covenants God had promised to Israel. Thus, the Church came to replace Israel. Today, this is known as covenant, reformed, or replacement theology. Theologians call it supercessionism. While it is the predominant theological view in Christendom, it is an errant theology. It has as its foundation a flawed hermenuetical system.
Despite the prevailing theological climate in the Middle Ages, certain groups such as the Syrian School of Antioch and the Victorines rejected the allegorical method. When the Reformers emerged, they revised current theological thought and established a more disciplined method of interpretation. Literal interpretation began to reassert itself as the dominant methodology, especially in the realm of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). As a result of this change they were able to bring to light the great doctrine of justification by faith alone. They saw that the Scriptures, when understood in a normal way, revealed that salvation was based solely on faith in Christ alone. But old habits and traditions die hard. The reformers were unable to bring their methodology into other realms of theology such as eschatology and ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). While the reformers failed to exploit a historical, grammatical, and literal hermeneutic into other areas of theology their failure is understandable. They were under tremendous pressures and what they achieved was nothing less than remarkable. The tragedy in Christendom is that 500 years have passed and the goal is still unrealized. The vast majority of scholars, pastors, and theologians fail to apply a consistent literal, grammatical hermeneutic to the Scriptures. Covenant Theology has abandoned a literal hermeneutic in dealing with prophecy or with Israel. Because of this weakness, they fail to understand the difference between Israel and the Church and they stumble in their interpretation of prophetic passages.
Most theologians today misinterpret the Church as the new Israel. They apply promises given by God to national Israel to the Church. Another misinterpretation is the teaching that the kingdom prophecies are being fulfilled spiritually in the lives of believers today. To reach these conclusions one must wrest the normal reading and meaning of the Scriptures and apply them figuratively. The Bible student must be vigilant to insure that the Scriptures lead to theology rather than follow theology. The tail must not wag the dog.
It is stunning and tragic to realize how readily interpreters reject the normal reading of the text. They remain trapped in a flawed system from the Middle Ages and continue to interpret ecclesiological and eschatological subject matter allegorically . Why is this? Are they unable to believe the God who dwells between the cherubim? It is hard to understand why they doubt God's sovereignty and his faithfulness--that he will fulfill his word literally as he has done in the past. God has proven that he is faithful by fulfilled hundreds of promises already. And let us note how God fulfilled his promises. Were they fulfilled figuratively or literally? Consider the following. How would non-literal interpreters interpret the Scriptures related to the Lord's first advent had they lived in earlier days? Would they not maintain that the idea of a literal Messiah was nonsense? Would they not have thought a literal incarnation unthinkable? Would they not argue that a literal interpretation of the death of the Messiah was nonsense? Would they not think the view that the Messiah's literal death would solve the problem of sin lunacy?
Those who work from a non-literal hermeneutic also often uncritically follow tradition. While tradition has certain virtues it guilefully tempts to rigidity and blindness. Jesus' condemned the religious authorities of his day for two reasons. One was their hypocrisy. The other was their tradition. The religious leaders placed tradition alongside or above the Scriptures. While some teachings of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. have merit, they are no substitute for the Scriptures. When their commentary conflicts with the normal reading of the text, we must follow the text. Our chief purpose when we approach the Scriptures is to discover what they say. To fulfill this purpose we must allow them to speak in their normal or literal sense.
The gospel accounts reveal that when Jesus referred to the Scriptures, he interpreted them in their literal sense. Jesus made references to the biblical figures of David, Abiathar, Jonah, Solomon, Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Abel, Daniel, Noah, Elijah, and Elisha. He taught that they were literal personages and that the events surrounding them historical. He also noted the events and places of Sodom, Nineveh, the creation of man, and the Flood. In each case he interpreted the events and places as literal and historical. Consider the following statement by Jesus:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished" (Mt. 5.17-18).
More familiar as "jot or tittle" in the King James translation, the "smallest letter or stroke" is the Greek expression i(w~ta e(\n h)\ mi'a kerai/a (one iota or one point) which referred to the smallest Hebrew letter "yod" and part of a letter such as the "horn" part of a letter. Did Jesus believe in the literal fulfillment of Scripture? According to his above statement, not just down to the word but down to the smallest letter and to the smallest part of a letter. Can one be more literal than that?
The literal interpreter is in good company while the figurative interpreter is at odds with his Master. This should be a sobering thought to those who "spiritualize" texts.
1Lewis, C. S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1954, p.186.
tw~| a)gapw~nti h(ma~j kai\ lu/santi h(ma~j e)k tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n e)n tw|~ a(i/mati au)tou~
©1998 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.
Updated January 12, 2007