by Brandon D. Smith

The history of interpretation isn't monolithic. You can point out examples of "bad" hermeneutics in any church era for the last 2,000 years, and that value judgment will often be as much about the critic’s presuppositions as anything else. But if we are willing to read and understand premodern exegesis, we may be able to retrieve premodern exegesis for the benefit of evangelical churches today.

The most common charge is that the premodern exegetes (like the Church Fathers) were hopped up on “allegory” pills and largely only cared about fanciful interpretations of texts, thus denying their “literal” history or meaning. The truth is, the “literal sense” doesn’t have a defined meaning. But generally speaking, we could say the literal sense relates to the text’s historical realities and referents, textual features, etc. This element has always been important in the Christian tradition.

Below are a few examples of a well-rounded interpretive method among some major thinkers in the Christian tradition. One could spend more time surveying figures like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, and Calvin, but these must suffice for now.

Interpretation in Origen of Alexandria

Since he’s the most commonly-cited example of an allegorical offender, Origen of Alexandria is a perfect place to start. Origen was critiqued for allegory even by his own contemporaries, so this is nothing new for him. If one wants to say that Origen played fast-and-loose with the text, he will have a difficult time making this charge in reading him. Note his clarification in On First Principles 4.19:

Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Savior to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed.

We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon? — and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning.

Origen says here that there are more “literal” passages than “spiritual”(allegorical). Indeed, Origen is in many respects the fountainhead of text criticism. He painstakingly sought to understand the very words of the text, did extensive translation and word studies, produced the Hexapla, and based many of his interpretations on the original languages.

I personally enjoy reading Origen, yet I certainly scratch my head at his interpretations sometimes. But saying he was merely a wild allegorist without concern for the text is unjustifiable if one spends any time reading him.

As I said above, premodern exegesis wasn't monolithic. Neither was allegory.

Interpretation in Gregory the Great

Allegory took on different forms throughout church history. For some, it was a type of moral application; for others, it resembled what we now call "typology"; for still others, it was a mix of things. But for most, allegory was based on biblical-theological patterns and deductions.

As church history progressed and developed, so did varying forms of interpretation. During the 4th-5th centuries, many of Origen's biblical-theological moves were adopted by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. If one affirms the Trinity, for example, it is owed it in part to Origen.

A later example of this development is 6th-century theologian, Gregory the Great. With Gregory, we start to see precursors to what would become a more full-fledged fourfold sense that would dominate the Medieval period, though Gregory’s resembles a more “three-fold” method—literal-historical, allegorical, and moral. His Exposition of Job offers an example of this:

• “Literal-historical” – Job was an historical figure in time and space;

• “Allegorical” – “Job” means “one who suffers” and “Uz” means “counselor,” both of which parallel Christ;

• “Moral” – Job’s faith is a model for us.

With Gregory’s method, there is a clear methodological commitment to historical referents, textual features, original languages, typology, moral application, and so on. One might say this is solid sermon preparation. 

One may not like the "allegorical" part, but he is clearly not departing from the text. Instead, he does meaningful textual work. He does not merely pull the Jesus rabbit out of a hat by allegorical magical fiat.

Interpretation in the Medievals

The medieval period and the fourfold method had its excesses, to be sure, but we again have to acknowledge that every era of church history has varied examples.[1] That said, one cannot read, say, Aquinas's exegesis and come away with any conclusion that he was by default being fanciful with the text. He built his famous "five proofs," for example, on passages like Exod. 3:14. Like his predecessors, any influence from Platonism or Aristotelianism was used in service to the text, not as a replacement for it.

And yet, even where medieval "allegory" could get off the rails, Hugh of St. Victor offers a warning in On Sacred Scripture 5:

I wonder how some people dare to present themselves as scholars of allegory when they do not even know the first meaning of the letter. They say, ‘We read Scripture, but we do not read the letter. We do not care about the letter, for we teach allegory.’ How can we read Scripture and not read the letter? If we take away the letter, what is Scripture?

Hugh warns explicitly against any allegory that departs from the literal sense of the text. So, no one can deny the allegorical excesses from any era of church history, but there are numerous examples of the most influential theologians of each era practicing and even arguing for restraint when others wandered too far from the literal sense.

Interpretation in the Reformers

The Reformers certainly made strides away from the excesses of medieval allegory, though it was already happening in figures like Aquinas and Hugh. Luther was notably critical of allegory after his own early love for it, but did not abandon or condemn it indiscriminately. For example, in his Lectures on Genesis (during his commentary on chapter 9), he is more nuanced:

Allegories either must be avoided entirely or must be attended with the utmost discrimination and brought into harmony with the rule [of faith] in use by the apostles. . . Yet these remarks must not be understood to mean that we condemn all allegories indiscriminately , for we observe that both Christ and the apostles occasionally employ them. But they are such as are conformable to the faith [analogae fidei], in accordance with the rule of Paul, who enjoins in Rom. 12:6 that prophecy or doctrine should be conformable to the faith.

When we condemn allegories, we are speaking of those that are fabricated by one's own intellect and ingenuity, without the authority of Scripture. The others, which are made to agree with the analogy of the faith, not only embellish doctrine but also gives comfort to consciences

Many of Luther’s comments on the text would make some of our former teachers blush! It’s worth noting that the Reformers were not monolithic, either, but it's fair to say generally that the literal sense would be expanded to encompass aspects of the allegorical, typological, moral, anagogical, etc. into a more "single-meaning" paradigm. Even so, they were still "premodern" in approach given their deep concern for the theological/spiritual sense, particularly with respect to the law vs. gospel conversation.

Retrieving Premodern Exegesis

What happened to the literal sense? As it turns out, nothing. The "literal sense" was never abandoned by any major thinker or movement for 1,800 yrs. It took on different forms—some we may like more than others—but the multi-layered meaning(s) drawn from various senses usually started with the literal sense and moved outward. We might even call most major forms of interpretation a literal+ model.

The Enlightenment can't be blamed for all our problems, but the rise of the historical-critical method particularly in 20th century German circles made it en vogue to neuter the Bible's theological sense, deny the Spirit's inspiration/illumination, and generally treat the Bible as mere historical artifact. The historical-grammatical method is a more "Christianized" version— acknowledging the divine origin of Scripture—but oftentimes, when left to its own devices, it's still hyper-focused on psychoanalyzing the human authors.

I personally think the historical-grammatical method is (or can be) a helpful development in better articulating the "literal sense" of Scripture. What was the human author's "intent"? What might the first-century audience have understood? These are good questions. However, these questions have limitations. If we affirm the divine origin of Scripture—namely the inspiration and illumination of the Spirit—then we must say that the divine author providentially arranged and organized the 66-book canon, apart from and yet with the human authors.

As Ched Spellman says succinctly, the Bible is a story that takes two Testaments to tell.[2]

I don't prefer to use a strict two-author bifurcation (exaggeratively dividing the “human author” and the “divine author”) because I see God's providential inspiring and ordering as inseparable from the human authors' writings. Yet, we should say that Moses or John had an original intent/audience and also “these were written for our instruction” (1 Cor 10; Rom 15) in a “living and active” book (Heb 4) that is “profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3). It is living and active because it is still used by the Spirit for us (1 Cor 2). 

So whatever one’s flavor of hermeneutics, a Christian reading requires us to ask questions about history, typology, allegory, moral application, eschatological fulfillment, and so on. Any good sermon includes these questions because the text demands it (to varying degrees).

So, the modern impulse of treating the human authors as the mere center of interpretation threatens to treat the Bible as “just another book” with some historical data thrown in. It is slightly puzzling when evangelicals approach the text in this manner while also warning against creeping “liberalism” of 20th-century German theology; the human authors as the mere center of interpretation is actually the warmed-over 20th century German liberal modernism that they are warning against.

In sum, a Christian hermeneutic that takes the “way the words go” seriously cannot stop at mere historical reconstruction of what the author might've meant or his audience might've heard or archaeological proofs. This is important to consider—indeed, the Fathers asked these questions too. However, to say that the “intent” of the original authors and “what their audience would've understood” is in toto the only concern, one is left without the ability to speak meaningfully about divine storytelling, canonical unity, prophecy/fulfillment, and contextualization for today. Not to mention, this type of historical reconstruction is impossible at any rate.

Also, we simply must do something with passages like Luke 24, John 5, etc., where Jesus gave his apostles a model for reading the Scriptures that “spoke about him.” Two-thousand years of Christians have simply tried to model the apostles who sought to model Jesus. So while we can disagree about the extent to which Christian readers can model the apostles’ method, we must acknowledge that we cannot exhaust the depths in which Christ says, “the Scriptures spoke about me.” We should plumb the depths with a thoughtful, mature, measured, and wise approach that's rooted in the text as the sole authority and organizing principle. But we shouldn't be afraid to ask these theological-spiritual questions.

And as we ask these questions, we should read the Christian tradition with generosity and depth, so that we can retrieve the best from them without caricaturing them.

___

[1] I wrote about evangelicals and the fourfold sense more fully here: https://mereorthodoxy.com/defense-premodern-exegesis/. See also Matt Emerson’s post here at CBR on the principles of premodern exegesis: http://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/blog/2019/11/18/premodern-exegesis-in-10-sentences

[2] Jeremy M. Kimble and Ched Spellman, Invitation to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2020), 83.