About two years ago I remembered hearing some troubling news about an amputation. As it turns out, a man in his early 20’s from Idaho severed his own hand because he was lead to believe from reading The Book of Revelation the ‘Mark of the Beast’ was a literal mark. This isn’t the only time something like this happened because of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I remembered on more than one occasion hearing stories like this over the news.
Even in my college days there were some strange interpretations. One morning I walked into my next door roommate’s pad and noticed that he wasn’t there. Later that day I asked him about his absence and he told me he was praying. I said, “but I didn’t see you, I came into your room and you weren’t there”. He said, “I was sitting inside the closet”….oh.
I heard some interpretations as well back in my hometown at New York City. One one occasion, an elder stood up and told everyone that if you didn’t pay tithe you were going to be cursed by God. Hmm.. I thought to myself, “Wow, I guess my cursed already because I’m broke!” On another occasion, I was stopped by some two guys wearing black robes that told me I was divine because Jesus was of African decent. They read the text in Revelation 1:14 where it read that “his head and his hair were white like wool…” I suppose wool hair was the emphasis. Then I was told that I must follow them because the black man is superior…mmkay.
Questionable interpretations about the Bible seem to never go away. While some interpretations do come from those who devoutly wish to follow God’s word, some interpretations have contributed much confusion to the question of ‘how’ to understand the Bible. Now, I know Biblical Interpretation, as theologically dense of an issue as it sounds, has little immediate concern for some people unless they do plan to be devout in their Christianity. Nevertheless, it is an issue of concern for me and maybe for others; when a situation arises where answers are needed. However, I think I won’t wait till a crisis occurs to know the ‘how’ of it all. Kind of like waiting for their to be a fire, but put-off figuring out where’s the nearest exit.
Church History to be very useful in helping me understand this situation. From what I’ve read, Biblical Interpretation has always been the ‘nerve’ behind some of the biggest issues and the most dangerous actions taken by the church. Even today there are a variety of interpretive methods used for the Bible. Some people desire a more ‘liberal’ understanding where they exercise more freedom in the lifestyle, while others gravitate to a more preserved or ‘conservative’ interpretation to protect the ‘truth’. I don’t particularly hold allegiance to either camp, but I do appreciate some interpretations they bring to the table. Ultimately, I try to say away from 4 types of interpretation: Allegorical, Naturalist, Existential, and Over-personalization a.k.a ‘cherry picking’.
Allegorization
Allegorization is a lot like using way to much of your Christian imagination inside the Bible. A good example of this would be anything in the Bible mentioning wood is the cross, red is the blood of Christ, and water being the Holy Spirit.
Where did this come from? Well it came from early Christianity. While other Christian leaders before the 2nd Century used allegorization as a method of rhetoric, it was later made a system of interpretation by the church father Origen.
Origen interpreted the Bible in 3 ways: ‘Body’, ‘Spirit’, and ‘Soul’. Body’ was a somewhat negative/inferior kind of interpretation. This was accounted to the fact that Origen was influenced by Neo-Platonism. The body interpretation (literal) played the least significance and so, he emphasized the ‘Spirit’ and ‘Soul’ over the ‘Body’. This later progressed to a 4-fold interpretation and things started getting out of hand. By the time the Middle Ages were around there was a 7 fold interpretation. This pretty much lasted till the Reformation. Allegorization was mostly used in preaching.
Now, I can see the good in allegorization for it’s creativity and rhetorical beauty given to a Bible text. It can serve as a good tool for the communication of truth (e.g. preaching rhetoric), but it was progressed to a primary method of interpretation. This is where things get weird. The literal is downplayed for the more creative form of interpretation. Rhetoric goes over and against what the Bible actually says. This pretty much puts the Bible in a position to be interpreted in any creative fashion and it eventually loses it’s meaning and intent.
So, while it sounds nice to hear in a sermon that Lazarus represents ‘a man who repents’, snakes in the wilderness are ‘the curse of sin’, and that Song of Solomon is actually about Christ and the church it really isn’t. Christian sentiments have their place, but not as rules of interpretation.
Next: Naturalist Interpretation
Verum Unus 