The purpose of this short post is to, as simply as possible, present, compare, and contrast different approaches to interpreting the biblical text. If Scripture is what it claims to be—God’s inspired and authoritative word to humanity (e.g., Ps 19:7–13; John 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21), necessary and sufficient for knowing him rightly, responding to him pleasingly, and glorifying him absolutely—then few topics are more pressing and worthy of careful consideration. There is much at stake!

In what follows, four common hermeneutical methods¹“Hermeneutics is the science that furnishes the principles of interpretation. These principles guide and govern anybody’s system of theology.” Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 89. will be defined and illustrated, three will be suggested as problematic, leaving one as preferable, powerful, and divinely prescribed. 

Allegorical Hermeneutics

When a reader of the Bible determines, intuits, or desires that a “deeper” meaning must exist floating beneath the surface of a text, an allegorical hermeneutic²Allegory is not to be confused with typology. See Brent E. Parker, “Typology and Allegory: Is There a Distinction? A Brief Examination of Figural Reading,” SBJT 21, no. 1 (2017): 57–72. Scripture clearly includes both, e.g., Col 2:16–17 and Heb 10:1 as examples of the former and Matt 13:3–9 and Luke 15:11–32 as examples of the latter, and care should be taken to identify and distinguish each. Similarly, one author reminds Bible students that “it is very important to distinguish between the interpretation of an allegory and allegorical interpretation” (Paul K. Jewett, “Concerning the Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture,” WTJ 17, no. 1 [1954]: 3). Indeed, the former is a fixed and recognized literary form that must, like all others, be interpreted with and subjected to a consistent hermeneutic. is often (and sometimes unwittingly) utilized. This “is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense.”³Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Wilde, 1950), 21. Emphasis added. Allegorical methodology not only assumes the secondary truth is more precious but implicitly and tragically dismisses the plain truth as a preparatory and pragmatic necessity, a delivery system akin to a medicine capsule that dissolves and disappears after ingestion so as to leave behind that which is actually beneficial.

Interestingly, there are some who hold that this deeper meaning of Scripture proves its inspiration, reasoning that a God as grand as that presented in the Bible would likewise communicate with unplumbable depths of beauty and meaning.⁴Dan G. McCartney, “Literal and Allegorical Interpretation in Origen’s Contra Celsum,” WTJ 48, no. 2 (1986): 292. The Song of Songs cannot simply be about the love and intimacy of a man and woman but must, instead, speak of Christ and his indescribable and sacrificial love for his church (a reality that was, at the point of Solomon’s writing, centuries away from being introduced, e.g., 4:7; Eph 5:21–32). David’s defeat of Goliath (1 Sam 17:41–51) is ultimately about Messiah’s eventual and inevitable triumph over Satan (e.g., Rev 12:7–9). The crowds that followed Jesus during his earthly ministry (e.g., Mark 4:1; 5:24) symbolize the diversity of the eschatological people of God (e.g., Rev 7:9).⁵Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 284. For an interpreter to stop short of these buried understandings is to forfeit the maturity-producing meat of the word and settle, instead, for the milk of babes. 

Some obvious concerns should arise with this approach to Bible interpretation. First, who gets to decide how deep the rabbit hole goes? Second, if the search for meaning can dive unceasingly deep, is it merely the creativity and imagination of the interpreter that forms the final arbiter of truth? Can the conquest of Canaan, for example, be associated with and anticipatory of any conflict the interpreter deems appropriate so long as there is a New Testament text loosely validating the connection? It would certainly seem so.

Thus, with this hermeneutic in place, the inspired word is subjected to the preferences and personality of the reader. “The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter’s doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, or a host of other factors.”⁶J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 5. The reader is no longer called to submit to the word of God but rather demands the word do the submitting. A tragic biproduct of this authority shift is that all confidence in finding true meaning of the biblical text is forfeit. If the text can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything.

Spiritualized Interpretation

As a hermeneutic, spiritualization⁷Sometimes this method is referred to as anagogical or mystical interpretation. sits atop, benefits from, and is perhaps the natural terminus of the allegorical hermeneutic. In many ways, spiritualization is even more untethered from Scripture than allegorical as “most historical and natural components of the textual message are dismissed and only the spiritual core of relationship with God is kept. Then a spiritualized principle is formed based on this core.”⁸Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 216. The interpreter finds the cob and can then discard the husk. With this method, many have claimed that Jesus is the holy of holies, all of Scripture is a parable, eternal punishment is not real, Noah’s ark is the church, the future millennium is present and ethereal, and the church is spiritual Israel.⁹These examples and others are listed and expounded upon in Steve Spurlin, “Roots of a Different Tree: Spiritualized Interpretation,” in The Green Tree and the Hermeneutic Roots of Biblical Faith and Practice, eds. Christopher Cone and John Oglesby (Independence: Exegetica, 2021), 129–35.

The question remains the same here as with allegorical hermeneutics: By what standard is an interpretation to be measured and accepted? Is it the creative mind of the interpreter, the supposed needs of a culture, the determined good of the world, the accepted morality of the majority, or the supposed contemporary private revelation of the Spirit? If it is not the text itself that reigns supreme in authority, all authority is thrown into the shadows of doubt.

Genre Hermeneutics

In understanding any form of communication, appreciation for its genre¹⁰Genre hermeneutics is sometimes called or a facet of form criticism and genre theory. See Tremper Longman III, “Form Criticism, Recent Developments in Genre Theory, and the Evangelical,” WTJ 47, no. 1 (1985): 46–67. is not necessarily problematic. A poem will use words and forms differently than an email. A valedictorian address will utilize language and style differently than a diary entry. Thus, it is an appropriate consideration when coming to the biblical text as Scripture boasts the poetic and prophetic, the epistolary and historical narrative. 

However, the recognition of different genre is not the same as using genre as an interpretive grid. As one author has suggested, “each genre represents truth in its own way and makes unique demands for how it should be read.”¹¹Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993), 77. Another makes the bold assertion that, “meaning is genre dependent.”¹²Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 9. 

In genre hermeneutics, then, the form of the text shifts from becoming a valid consideration in the interpretative process to being a driving force in the interpretive process. Indeed, the question becomes, “Does genre regulate or merely describe a literary work?”¹³Grant R. Osborne, “Genre Criticism—Sensus Literalis,” TRINJ 4, no. 2 (1983): 1, emphasis added. Categorizing the book of Jonah as allegory or parabolic, for example, has given many Bible interpreters—especially of the liberal, materialistic, or naturalistic stripes—the “freedom” to ignore the miraculous. Likewise, labeling the biblical covenants as conforming with extra-biblical vassal treaty literature over-simplifies their diversity and calls into question their largely unilateral nature.¹⁴Michael D. Stallard, “Literal Interpretation: The Key to Understanding the Bible,” JMAT 4, no. 1 (2000): 32. These are examples of how, when the genre is front-loaded into the interpretive process, it can dramatically affect the mined meaning.

Some issues come to mind, however, that call the usefulness of this methodology into question. What happens when certain texts reside in more than one genre?¹⁵For example, one author lists “narrative” as a specific genre but then further breaks that genre down into poetic narrative, historical narrative, etc. There is, in fact, another level of subcategories provided even beyond that! See Richard W. Engle, “The Use of Genre in Bible Interpretation,” JMAT 4, no. 1 (2000): 98. If a passage of Scripture is historical poetry (e.g., Ex 15:1–18), which set of rules win the day? Which genre gets interpretive priority? Taking a step further back, by what authority is any given text determined to belong to a particular genre? What happens when interpreters cannot agree on what genres are valid?¹⁶For example, is apocalyptic a separate genre from prophetic? For one view (one that is not convincing to this author), see Richard W. Engle, “The Use of Genre in Bible Interpretation,” JMAT 4, no. 1 (2000): 94–98. See also Dave Mathewson, “Revelation in Recent Genre Criticism: Some Implications for Interpretation,” TRINJ 13, no. 2 (1992): 193–213. How can one even begin to identify the genre of a passage unless the passage is first understood?¹⁷As one scholar has said, “how can an interpreter attempt to classify a piece of writing into its appropriate genre unless he is able to read and understand what the text is saying prior to deciding its genre?” Thomas A. Howe, “Does Genre Determine Meaning?,” CAJ 6, no. 1 (2007): 4. Once again, Scripture is no longer found to be the authority but is being subjected to an alien standard, being squeezed to fit into man-made structures that, in turn, affect interpretation, meaning, and, eventually, application.

Genre is certainly a consideration in hermeneutics, but its place is the issue in question. “There is no escape from genre analysis. The question for the exegete is whether his or her analysis will be conscious and methodical or unconscious.”¹⁸Tremper Longman III, “Form Criticism, Recent Developments in Genre Theory, and the Evangelical,” WTJ 47, no. 1 (1985): 67. If it is the latter, there is trouble ahead. Says one author, “When literary genre wields control that overrides normal rules of interpretation, evangelical hermeneutics has sunk to unprecedented depths.”¹⁹Thomas, 308. It should be noted that some contemporary studies in the area of genre criticism insist that the issue is no longer one of categorization but of epistemology and ontology. See Osborne, “Genre Criticism—Sensus Literalis,” 9–16. E.g., “Genre is more than a means of classifying literary types; it is an epistemological tool for unlocking meaning in individual texts” (Ibid., 24).

Literal Hermeneutics

A fourth method of Bible interpretation will close our brief study—that of a literal²⁰Some, because of issues briefly mentioned here, would prefer adherents to this interpretive methodology move away from this label and, instead, opt for something like “contextual interpretation.” See Mark McGinnis, “Is ‘Literal’ Literally the Best Term for Dispensationalists Moving Forward?,” JMAT 2, no. 1 (2017): 71–85. hermeneutic. While often caricatured to the point of being untenable and scoffed at for being overly simplistic, a plain approach to discerning the meaning of the biblical text is ideal. “Literal interpretation has its criticisms and its misunderstandings. Nevertheless, it stands as the best approach for determining what the Bible means by establishing what it says as accurately and as clearly as possible. It focuses on the original author’s intent and examines the text in its various contexts to arrive at its actual meaning.”²¹Kenneth R. Cooper, “A Survey of the Case for Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures,” JODT 10, no. 30 (2006): 32. 

Much of the debate centers around the word “literal,” some insisting it ignores or flattens the beauty of the text with all its figures of speech and genre variety. However, advocates of this method simply mean that a Bible reader is to give “to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.”²²Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 91. Couch articulates the methodology well: “A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage.”²³Mal Couch, ed. An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000), 33. This takes into consideration genres, historical contexts, laws of grammar, and literary devices, all the while assuming a plain reading best honours the perspicuity of the Bible.

While many Bible students will confess to taking God’s word seriously and treating it as authoritative, it would seem the literal hermeneutic accomplishes this with the most consistency. Will there be moments of study when the text offends sensibilities, cultural idols, desires to be clever and imaginative, and longings for specific, personal, and immediate application? Yes, to all of the above. But this, perhaps, is what it means to privilege the text of Scripture, i.e., to believe that God has spoken, that he wants to be understood, and that he means what he says. It is only with a literal hermeneutic that one can consistently stand behind the text, yielding to its authority, and avoid putting the inerrant on trial to be cross-examined by the errant.

---