Matt Smethurst once wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition just before the beginning of a new year in which he recounts a fictional story “about the man who, in order to discern God’s will for his life, would open his Bible and read whichever verse he saw first.”[1] He tells it like this:
One day, as he was going through a difficult time with his family, he sought the Lord’s guidance. Opening his Bible, he pointed to a random verse. His finger rested on Matthew 27:5: “Then Judas went away and hanged himself.” Puzzled by these directions, but still hungry for a word from God, he called a “do-over” and flipped to another page. His eyes settled on Luke 10:37: “Go and do likewise.” Flustered but chalking it up to coincidence, the man decided to give his method one last chance. Saying a quick prayer, he flipped the page and placed his finger on John 13:27. There, staring up at him, was a command from Jesus: “What you are about to do, do quickly.”[2]
While this silly story seems at first to be outlandish, upon closer examination, you might realize that it is not too far from the method many Christians employ in seeking God’s will from the Bible. And it brings up the question, “How should we read our Bible?”.
The answer to this question is the concern of field of study called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, as Bernard Ramm famously defines it, is “the science and art of Biblical interpretation” whose goal is “to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God.” Hermeneutics is necessary because there are significant differences in time, culture, geography, and language between us and the biblical authors. Thus, the task of hermeneutics is to “bridge the gaps.”[3]
A hermeneutic is a particular philosophy or framework of interpretation. You can either have a good hermeneutic or a bad hermeneutic. You can interpret Scripture rightly or wrongly. Church history is full of examples of both. In this series, we will consider how not to interpret the Bible, the mandate for proper interpretation, a framework for proper interpretation, and finally a process for proper interpretation.
Reader-Response Criticism
Throughout the ages, people have consistently misinterpreted the Bible either naively, misguidedly, or maliciously. Consider some ways that people have mishandled Scripture. Perhaps, one of the most common examples of misinterpreting the Bible today is something called reader-response criticism. Most people who use this while they are reading their Bibles probably do not know the term. However, what began in academia has trickled down into the popular subconscious. In essence, reader-response criticism locates meaning not in the text of Scripture itself but in the meaning we—as readers— assign to it.
Roger Wolsey exemplifies this method of interpretation when he writes,
We realize that there is no ‘objective, one, right way’ to interpret a passage—and we recognize that there is no reading of any text—including the Bible—that doesn’t involve interpretation. We also realize that each person interprets the text via their own personal experiences, education, upbringing, socio-political context, and more.[4]
W. S. Vorster applies more academic language to the same concept:
By this time it is common knowledge among New Testament scholars that the reader plays an active role in assigning meaning to a text. The reception of Matthew 24 makes it clear that this text has prompted readers to assign different, even contradictory, interpretations to the text or to parts of it…Since reading is more than the discovery of the meaning which is seemingly inscribed into a text, it is not strange that different readers…interact with the text and actualise its meaning potential differently…It is furthermore assumed that texts do not have meaning. Meaning is arrived at by the dialectical process between a text, which evokes a response from the reader, and the reader who assigns meaning to the text, or responds to the text. It is also assumed that the (implied) reader is inscribed into the the text and that a real reader has a role in creating meaning by responding to codes inscribed into the text.[5]
What is common to both of these examples is the belief that any particular passage of Scripture does not have an objective meaning inherent to it but rather meaning is created when the reader interacts with the text. This view of the Bible is more popularly manifested by questions or statements similar to “What does this passage mean to you?”
Allegorizing
An older method of mishandling the text of Scripture, which has a long legacy in church history, is allegorizing. This is different than recognizing allegory as a legitimate genre of literature, which can be defined as, “A narrative which uses symbolic figures and actions to suggest hidden meanings behind the literal words of the text.”[6] For example, it is right and proper to read Pilgrim’s Progress as an allegory. That is what it is. However, allegorizing seeks to interpret passages of Scripture as allegory which were not intended as such.[7] Augustine is the classic example of this. Although Augustine was an exceptional scholar and a uniquely influential theologian, he missed the boat on this. Consider his reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; Adam himself is meant; Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho means the moon, and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. Thieves are the devil and his angels. Who stripped him, namely; of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him half-dead, because in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead. The priest and the Levite who saw him and passed by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament which could profit nothing for salvation. Samaritan means Guardian, and therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast is the flesh in which He deigned to come to us. The being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is the Apostle (Paul). The supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the Gospel was new, though it was lawful for him “to live by the gospel.”[8]
When allegorizing, the plain meaning of the text is passed over in favor of a supposedly deeper, more spiritual meaning.
Literalizing
Occasionally, readers will swing to the opposite side of the pendulum and literalize the text. They do this by interpreting a passage without regard to genres of literature, figures of speech, metaphors, etc. In this case, these rhetorical features are interpreted literalistically. This is different than a “literal” interpretation. Unfortunately, though, this is often the caricature. Literalizing fails to understand Scripture according to the normal means of communication. Consider some of the passages that fall victim to this sort of interpretation:
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (Jn 10:9)
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn 6:53)
He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. (Ps 91:4)
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5:29–30)
Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. (Ps 22:12–15)
Those who employ this method personally or maliciously to demonstrate the “ridiculous nature” of the Bible are inconsistent since they would never apply the same standard to any of their daily communications.
Generalizing
One final way that people mishandle the text of Scripture is by generalizing it. Simply put, to generalize Scripture is to interpret it more broadly than was originally intended. Generalizing fails to recognize that God deals with humanity in specific ways during specific times for specific purposes. People rely on this often, but selectively and inconsistently. For example, many like to generalize the promises to the exilic community of Jews in Babylon to include all Christians: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer 29:11). Coincidentally, it often finds its way onto graduation cards. But those who generalize these great promises usually do not do the same for the covenant curses which actually brought the exile upon the Jews (e.g., Dt 28:15–24).
[1] Matt Smethurst, “How to Study Your Bible in 2020,” The Gospel Coalition, 30 December 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-study-bible/.
[2] Ibid.
[3] See Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1991), 14ff.
[4] Roger Wolsey, “16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible,” https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogerwolsey/2014/01/16-ways-progressive-christians-interpret-the-bible/
[5] W.S. Vorster, “A Reader-Response Approach to Matthew 24:3-28,” HTS 47/4 (1991), 1099-1100. Emphasis added.
[6] William R. Goodman Jr., “Allegory,” EDB 44. Goodman explains the origins of allegory: “The word ‘allegory’ originated in the Greek world and was used most frequently by authors who wished to retain the truths of traditional worldviews when ancient traditions were being challenged by new knowledge. The Homeric stories of the gods were interpreted allegorically by later Greeks who wished to ‘demythologize’ the tales of the capricious and immoral deities of Olympus and make them more intellectually meaningful and ethically acceptable to a people whose worldview was becoming more scientific and sophisticated. The word “allegory” itself was first used in Hellenistic times by Stoics and Cynics seeking to counter the attacks on the Olympian pantheon which had been made by Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Plato” (ibid.). Similarly, Philo allegorized the Pentateuch so as to make it more relevant to Greek thought (ibid.).
[7] McClelland states, “The literary use of allegory should be distinguished from the method of interpretation known as ‘allegorizing.’ This method is characterized as by the search for a deeper meaning in the literal statements of a text that is not readily apparent in the text itself. The method often dictates more of the thoughts of the interpreter than that of the original author” (S. E. McClelland, “Allegory,” EDT 33. Emphasis added).
[8] Augustine, Quaestiones Evangeliorum, II, 19 –slightly abridged as cited in Dodd, C.H., The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribners, 1961), 1–2. Italics represent the text of Scripture.
A Boy and His Bible 