History Of Biblical Interpretation

History> Of 

Biblical Interpretation

by Johnny Elmore

last updated 29 May 2020x

When we speak of biblical interpretation, we are talking about the science called "Hermeneutics." The word itself comes from a Greek word meaning "to interpret, to explain." In Greek mythology, Hermes, or Mercury was thought of as the messenger of the gods, himself a god skilled in speech, writing, etc.

Examples of Biblical Interpretation

One of the most outstanding examples of the importance of biblical interpretation, as well as an illustration of the science itself, can be found in the Old Testament. The Jewish people were entrusted with the Oracles of God — so said the apostle Paul in Romans 3:1-2 — but they often showed little appreciation for them. They finally erred to the extent that exile and dispersion became their lot. While still in captivity, however, one man set his heart on a devout study of the Scriptures, realizing that only a return to the Law of the Lord could restore Israel. We are told that "Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments" (Ezra 7:10).

The result was that Ezra led a company of exiles back to Jerusalem, where he found a people humbled and chastened of God gathered at the Water Gate. Ezra stood before them and read the law and, with his associates, "caused the people to understand the law" (Nehemiah 8:7). Nehemiah 8:8 tells us how they did it: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." That is biblical interpretation, pure and simple. The grand part is the terrific impact such instruction had on the people, for we are told that they "separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers" (Nehemiah 9:2).

The eminent Moses Stuart, who has been called "the father of American biblical literature," argued that the Bible should be interpreted by the same principles as all other books, and answered critics of this method. I want to read a paragraph from his pen, which has been quoted by Campbell:

In order to answer these inquiries, let us direct our attention, in the first place, to the nature and source of what are now called principles or laws of interpretation. Whence did they originate? Are they the artificial production of high-wrought skill, of labored research, of profound and extensive learning? Did they spring from the subtleties of nice distinctions, from the philosophical and metaphysical efforts of the schools? Are they the product of exalted and dazzling genius, sparks of celestial fire which none but a favored few could emit? No; nothing of all this. The principles of interpretation, as to their substantial and essential elements, are no invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill; nay, they can scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered by him. They are coeval with our nature. They were known to the antediluvian. They were practiced upon in the garden of Eden, by the progenitors of our race. Ever since man was created, and endowed with the powers of speech, and made a communicative, social being, he has had occasion to practice upon the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first moment that one human-being addressed another by the use of language, down to the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation became, and have continued to be, a practical matter. The person addressed has always been an interpreter, in every instance where he has heard and understood what was addressed to him.1

Stuart continues to say that "all men are, and ever have been, in reality, good and true interpreters of each other's language."2 He affirms that the science of hermeneutics is one with which all men are more or less acquainted. He says:

If it were a far-fetched science, dependent on high acquisitions and the skillful application of them, then it would be comparatively a useless science; for, in such a case, only a favored few of the human race would be competent to understand and acquire it; still fewer could be satisfactorily assured of its stable and certain nature.3

Early Christians

But we are asked how early Christians interpreted the Scriptures. Did they use the same method we do? If not, what method did they use? Unfortunately, I am not acquainted with any early Christians, so I have been dependent upon other sources of information. We can learn something of how the early Christians "interpreted" the Scriptures by the way they applied the Old Testament.

It has been pointed out that the purpose of language seems to require literal interpretation, and that over three hundred prophecies surrounding the coming of Christ were literally fulfilled. Of the twenty-four sanctioned by the New Testament as being typically fulfilled, only seven are cited as examples of a non-literal hermeneutic. We find the writers of the New Testament using the Old Testament as an illustration (Romans 9:9-12), as an analogy (1 Corinthians 1:19), applicationally (Romans 12:19), and rhetorically (James 4:6).

It must be obvious that people of the first century recognized the familiar fact that the Scriptures teach by command, example and necessary inference. We find them going into all nations, teaching and baptizing, in obedience to the Savior's commands (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16). We find them following examples, becoming "followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess-alonians 2:14). We find Jesus using implication in His teaching, and His audience making the necessary inference (Matthew 22:31-33). We find the New Testament writers clearly implying certain things and expecting us to make the necessary inference (1 Corinthians 2:1-2; Acts 18:1-8). We even find the writer of Hebrews using an argument from the silence of the Scriptures (Hebrews 7:14).

I have not read all the uninspired histories of the Christians of the first century, but what I have read indicates that they understood the Scriptures the way we do. I might note two particular examples supplied by Mosheim.

The rites instituted by Christ himself were only two in number, and these designed to continue to the end of the church here below, without any variation. These rites were baptism and the holy supper ...5

All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Savior arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.6

The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed, and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.7

I am not saying by this that I can show that their understanding was identical to ours in every way, but, at least, they understood two of the things that we are most criticized for preaching today, and that is breaking bread on the first day of the week and immersing the whole body.

Apostolic Fathers

What about those early religious writers who have been styled "Apostolic Fathers" because of their supposed relationship as scholars of the apostles? They are identified as Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and the author of the epistle to Diognetus. What method of biblical interpretation did they use?

Terry says, "In the writings of the apostolical fathers we observe a frequent, practical, and, in the main, appropriate, use of Scripture."8 Other than saying that Rahab's scarlet thread indicates "that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God" and citing the fable of the Phoenix as a fact to illustrate the doctrine of the resurrection, there is little in Clement's epistle that "can fairly be pronounced far fetched or fanciful."9

The writer of The Epistle of Barnabas, according to Terry, "seems everywhere anxious to allegorize or explain away those parts of Scripture which enjoin outward ordinances, or in any way favor Judaism."10 Of the author of the Ignatian epistles, Terry says that he was "a fanciful reasoner and an unsafe interpreter of the Scriptures."11 The Epistle to Diognetus and the Shepherd of Hermas are said to "contain no specimens of Scripture and furnish no special help to trace the history of interpretation."12

Papias is described as "a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures, but much given to following traditions, and very limited in his compre-hension."13

Terry says, "The Church of this early period was too much engaged in struggles for life to develop an accurate or scientific interpretation of Scripture."14

Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of the second century, was said to be a "fearless defender of Christianity," and "a man of great learning," but "he clung with tenacity to some of the teachings of Plato." His expositions are said to be "often fanciful, sometimes almost silly."15 Of all the writers of this period, Irenaeus is said to be the "greatest Church teacher." Terry says: "No one in the second century represents as he does the purity arid the fullness of the development within the Church; scarcely any one in the Church of his time is so highly esteemed as he."16 Terry concludes that “during the second century of our era there was no uniform or settled method of interpreting the Scriptures."17

Long before the time of Christ, Alexandria had been the home of men of letters. "The Asiatic mystic, the Jewish rabbi, and the Greek and Roman philosopher there came together and inter-changed their thoughts."18 At Alexandria, the philosophies of Plato and the fanciful speculations of Philo met and mingled, and as a result, the scholars of the Alexandrian church were much given to allegorical expositions of the Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria is described as a "fanciful interpreter," having read Philo and adopting his allegorical methods. Most of us are acquainted with the so-called "double sense" of biblical interpretation, but Clement found five possible meanings to a passage of scripture.19

After Clement came Origen; who was not only well learned but also pure in character. The world owes a great debt to Origen for his labors, but he followed in the path of Philo and Clement, assuming that many portions of the Scriptures are unreasonable and absurd when taken literally, and teaching a threefold sense, namely, the corporeal, the psychical, and the spiritual. He also taught the per-existence of souls, a new probation after death, and explained the sacred records as Platonists did the heathen myths; but in spite of that, he is generally acknowledged as “the father of biblical science." Other representatives of the Alexandrian school were Eusebius of Caesarea, and Cyril of Alexandria, both of whom subscribed to the allegorical method of explaining the Scriptures. For example, Cyril made the five loaves of John 6:9 to represent the five books of Moses as "a comparatively course food,” and the “two fishes" to "denote the finer and more luxurious nourishment of the teachings of Christ."23

There was another great school of biblical interpretation at Antioch in Syria, where "the disciples were called Christians first" (Acts 11:26). This school opposed the allegorical exegesis which was so prevalent at Alexandria, and introduced a more scientific and profitable system of biblical study. Time would fail us to tell of all those connected with this school, but John Chrysostom is regarded as "the greatest commentator among the early fathers of the Church."21

The Western Church, which later developed into the Roman Catholic Church, produced contemporaries Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, whom Terry called "the greatest biblical scholar, the greatest theologian, and the most distinguished heretic" respectively.22 Jerome translated the Bible into Latin. Although he put great emphasis on the historical and the literal, being influenced by the school of Antioch, in practice he was an allegorist. Augustine developed a handbook of hermeneutics and homiletics, which “contain a number of very sensible rules for the exposition of the Bible, but in practice he forsakes his own hermeneutic principles, and often runs into excessive allegorizing." Although Pelagius was a man of great learning, his defective views of the nature of sin and the work of divine grace in salvation have disqualified him as a profound exegete.23

The Middle Ages did not bring a great deal of improvement in biblical interpretation. How could it have been otherwise when education of the masses was discouraged, Bibles were chained to the pulpits, and dissenters were burned at the stake? Ramm states: "It would be over- simplification to assert that the only method of exegesis during the Middle Ages was the allegorical. It would not, however, be an exaggeration to assert that the preponderance of exegetical work was allegorical."24

The Reformers

But we must come to the Reformation. The great men of the Reformation are names we have come to know — Wycliffe, Huss, Calvin, Jerome of Prague, Luther, Knox and others. Obviously, I will not have time to mention each of them and their methods. Ramm says that there was a hermeneutic reformation which preceded the Reformation itself. One factor leading to it was said to be the philosophical system of Occam, [or Ockham] influencing Luther to see that what we know of God, we know by divine revelation and that the authority for dogma rests entirely on the Bible. The second factor was a renewed study of Hebrew and Greek. A lawyer, John Reuchlin, translated Kimchi's Hebrew grammar into Latin, enabling men to decipher Hebrew. Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament in 1516. Someone has said of the Reformation that "Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it."

Truly one of the great moments in the history of man was October 31, 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church house at Wittenberg. That was simply the opening shot. Luther's developed hermeneutic principles were: (1) The psychological principle; (2) The authority principle, i.e. the Bible is supreme and therefore above ecclesiastical authority; (3) The literal principle, (Luther rejected allegory, accepted the primacy of the original languages, and insisted that the interpreter must pay attention to grammar, times, circumstances, conditions and the context of the passage); (4) The sufficiency principle, i.e. the devout and competent Christian can understand the true meaning of the Bible without official guides offered by the Roman Catholic Church; (5) The Christology principle; and (6) The Law-Gospel principle.25

Another Reformer of note who developed a system of interpretation was John Calvin. Although we may have disdain for some of the tenets of Calvinism, we must have admiration for his courage in breaking away from the shackles of Rome. As we review the main points of his exegetical system, we may be able to perceive areas which could lead astray. He taught that: 

(1) Illumination of the Spirit was necessary spiritual preparation for the interpreter of God's Word; (2) Allegorical interpretation was Satanic, leading men away from the truth of Scripture; 

(3) Scripture interprets Scripture, with strong emphasis on grammatical exegesis, philology, and examining the context; (4) even orthodox doctrines are to be rejected if exegesis involved was unworthy; (5) exegesis ought to investigate the historical settings of all prophetic and Messianic Scriptures.26

Our Traditional Method

It has become customary among us to use both inductive and deductive logic in the study and teaching of the Bible. In inductive logic, we reason from the particular to the general, or from the parts to the whole; in deduction, from the general to the particular. We can illustrate the inductive method by summarizing the accounts of the Great Commission, or by the factors which enter into our salvation, and drawing a conclusion.

It is charged that Campbell originated this method of interpreting the Bible. We do find Campbell advocating what could be described as the inductive method. He wrote: "To speak more plainly: The inductive style of inquiring and reasoning, is to be as rigidly carried out in reading and teaching the Bible facts and documents, as in the analysis and synthesis of physical nature."27

It has been charged that Campbell borrowed the inductive method from Francis Bacon. It is undoubtedly true that Campbell was an admirer of Bacon, as well as John Locke. He published articles by Bacon and Locke in the Millennial Harbinger. But I think he was influenced also by many who studied and wrote on biblical interpretation. He was critical of John Cocceius' works, published in 1676, but appreciative of John Ernesti's book, written in 1761, and which served four generations of Bible scholars. He published articles by Moses Stuart and Thomas Home and many others, so he did not arrive at his conclusions in a vacuum. In 1834, Campbell published an article on biblical interpretation by a Paedo-Baptist in defense of infant sprinkling and remarked that the man laid down excellent rules, but abandoned them in practice. He then remarked:

This was the fault of the great philosopher Bacon. Lord Bacon pointed out the true method of philosophizing; yet, in practice, he abandoned it, and his own physical investigations may be ranked among the most effectual specimens of that rash and unfounded theorism, which his own principles have banished from the school of philosophy.28

J. S. Lamar published his Organon of Scripture in 1859 and set forth boldly the inductive method. He predicted that if we follow the inductive method, in most instances, "we shall perceive the exact place and the precise force of every fact, incident, circumstance, precept, doctrine, and communication; and thus learning 'rightly to divide the word of truth,' we shall assign to every sentence its proper place, and give to every word its legitimate force." He also predicted: "If properly used, it will make known the one only system of religion which Christ gave to the world, and will thus absorb whatever is true and reject whatever is false in all the systems and organiza-tions in Christendom."29

The inductive method of interpreting and reading the Scriptures was widely used by those seeking to restore the primitive church. C. Leonard Allen says: "One can hardly exaggerate the significance of the Baconian inductive method, for it gave rise, a generation after Campbell, to a stringent 'pattern' orthodoxy that has formed the very identity of Churches of Christ down to recent years." He also claims that Moses Lard "was among the first to systematize and harden the 'command, example, and necessary inference' schema that became standard among Churches of Christ" and that "Lard and numerous other second-generation leaders hardened Campbell's Baconian rationalism, pushing it to dogmatic lengths that Campbell, with his passion for unity, had resisted."30

My first encounter with anything resembling a system of biblical interpretation was at the Preachers' Study in 1959, when we studied that and other subjects. I still have my well-marked copy of J. S. Lamar's book. My first clear conception of how to identify command, example, and necessary inference was to read N. B. Hardeman's sermon, “Teaching the Word of God." A second reading of  Thomas B. Warren's book, When Is An Example Binding? also helped me to understand some things.

Three recent books have called in question the propriety of using this method of biblical interpretation. In the first one, The Worldly Church, the authors, C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed, state that "our forefathers in the faith—men like Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, Moses Lard, and J. W. McGarvey — adopted a way of reading the Bible called the 'inductive method.'" They continue: “The consequences of such a view were far-reaching. The focus began to fall heavily on obeying the laws, building by the blueprint, working the formulas, and knowing all the right 'facts,' in short upon human knowledge and performance." They charge further: “Christian identity and salvation came to depend on getting them all right, or at least the ones we judged to be 'binding.' Often enough, the result has been rancorous debate, division, and abiding animosity over what is central or peripheral, essential or nonessential."31

These authors state that the consequences of this way of reading the Bible has led to a secularization among churches of Christ resulting in the emergence of a gospel to meet subjective human needs, excessive focus on self, and a widespread reverence for power, control, and wealth.32

They warn that by "accommodating faith totally to reason we abandon the transcendence of God and subtly promote a secular view of the world where God either does not act or acts solely according to the dictates of human reason." As an example, they say "self-assured pronouncements about what God can and cannot do (e.g., 'God works in history but only in a non-miraculous fashion)." In a scathing rebuke of what we think of as digressives, they charge that secular churches make up for a void at the center, and state: "That void is not filled by ministries to the infirm, the outcast, and the needy. Many churches spend more time ministering to the 'needs' of the affluent with an array of annual ski trips, golf tournaments, intramural games, musicals, and the like." They conclude by saying: "We do not object to the idea of a biblical pattern per se. We object, rather, to a kind of pattern authority that imposes modern ways of thinking upon the Bible."33

In the second book, The Cruciform Church, C. Leonard Allen traces the beginnings of the inductive method. His thesis seems to be that this way of reading the Scriptures has essentially reduced the Christian life to a formula, dry and devoid of any power except human power, resulting in a secular church, very susceptible to intrusion by culture, and he recommends some solutions for change.34

The third book, Reviving the Ancient Faith, traces the story of the Churches of Christ in America, from Richard T. Hughes' perspective. His main thesis seems to be that Churches of Christ started out as a sect and wound up as a denomination. When we see his definitions of a sect and a denomination, we will see, again, a scathing indictment of his own brethren. He defines a sect as "a religious organization that insists that it — and it alone — constitutes the entirety of the kingdom of God. Typically , a sect stands in judgment both on other religious organizations and on the larger culture in which it exists." He defines a denomination: "In the American context, a church that recognizes it is only a part of the universal body of Christ. A denomination has typically made its peace with the dominant culture in which it exists."35

We may not like the conclusions and implications of these writers, but we should give them consideration. Remember that prophets are never wanted, but are needed. Remember that truth is truth, regardless of from what quarter it comes. When we see "gospel preachers" exchanging pulpits with Baptist preachers, we surely know that the digressives have made peace with the culture around them. Let us be warned. 

419 K S. W., Ardmore, OK 73401

Footnotes

1. Alexander Campbell, "On The Rules of Interpretation, No. II," Millennial Harbinger 3 (February 6, 1832):65.

2. Ibid., p. 66. 

3. Ibid.

4. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995), pp. 113-115. 

5. John Lawrence Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, (Rosemead, CA 1959), Vol. I, p. 35.

6.  Ibid. 

7. lbid., p.36.

8. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books nd.), p.631 

9. lbid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid, p. 632

12. Ibid. 

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., p. 630

15. Ibid., p. 634.

16. Ibid., pp. 635,636. 

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., p. 637.

19. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI, 1981), p. 31

20. Terry, pp. 641-644.

21. Ibid., p. 649.

22. Ibid, p. 656

23. Ibid, pp. 657-658

24. Ramm, p. 38.

25. Ramni, pp. 53-57.

26. Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

27. Alexander Campbell, "Schools and Colleges—No. II" Millennial Harbinger (March, 1850):pp. 171, 172.

28. Alexander Campbell, "Six Rules for Scripture Interpretation," Millennial Harbinger (October, 1834), p. 487.

29. J. S. Lamar, The Organon of Scripture (Rosemead, CA: The Old Paths Book Club, 1952), pp. 193-198.

30. C. Leonard Allen, The Cruciform Church, 2nd ed. (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1990), p. 29.

31. Leonard Allen, Richard Hughes, Michael Weed, The Worldly Church: A Call For Biblical Renewal, 2nd ed. (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1991), pp. 61-63.

32. Ibid.,pp. 64-66.

33. Ibid., pp. 104-107.

34. Allen, p 169.

35. Richard T. Hughes, Reviving The Ancient Faith, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), pp. xii-xiii

Please Contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments, questions, further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.