The Letter and Spirit of Biblical Interpretation (Book Review)

Biblical interpretation in the present era has been negatively influenced by a detachment from the exegetical accomplishments of the church throughout the ages. In an age where disputants retort with “that’s just your interpretation,” how does one know if their interpretation of the bible is orthodox? Does the pope have exclusive and infallible interpretive authority? Are there many popes, with each person his own indiscriminate, autonomous authority? Or does the history of the exegesis of the church help with the matter? Keith Stanglin expands on David Steinmertz’s article on “The Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis” by surveying premodern exegesis and what exegetes today can learn from the past (ix). Through an overview of historic exegesis, he demonstrates the necessity of theological interpretation harmonizing the literal sense (the letter) with the spiritual dimension (the spirit). In a post-Enlightenment, postmodern era adversely affected by the deconstruction of historic orthodoxy, a retrieval of pre-modern exegesis is crucial.  This paper will provide an overview of Stanglin’s book and identify that it is valuable for anyone who wants to take biblical interpretation seriously and understand the full sense of Scripture that the divine author intended.

Historical Survey

A historical survey traces the methods and movement of exegesis in prominent theologians in early Christian, later patristic, medieval, early modern, and historic-critical eras. In the early Christian era, the Epistle of Barnabas is “a fascinating example of early Christian spiritual interpretation of Scripture” (26). The author’s handling of Scripture follows the first-century Christians (29) who recognized that Scripture is inspired by God as its divine author.  The author of the epistle sees spiritual symbolism in Scripture, including Hebrew numbers, for example, seeing a reference to Jesus and the cross in the number 318 in Genesis 14:14. Irenaeus of Lyons exemplifies the use of typology, understanding that the whole of Scripture is focused on Christ, who is “hidden in the Scriptures like a treasure in a field” (31). The fundamental unity of Scripture and the grand story of redemption aids interpretation. By virtue of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture as a unified whole, the analogy of Scripture is an interpretive rule that obscure passages of Scripture are illuminated by clearer passages of Scripture. Irenaeus’s use of the rule of faith is an important feature of interpretation which refers to “the oral tradition representing the apostolic preaching, received from the apostles themselves and passed down through their successors (bishops) in the second-century church” (32). Early Christian exegesis demonstrates a typological interpretation that adheres to the rule of faith.

In the later patristic era, following the Apostle Paul’s hermeneutical precedence (51), Origen was famous for his systematic interpretive approach of allegory (48, 74), finding “the spiritual meaning enfleshed in its literal words” (51). Origen saw a Christological, moral, and spiritual use of Scripture (59). The Antiochene interpretation arose out of a discontent with Origen’s exegesis. The Antiochene school emphasized “the historical interpretation of the literal sense of Scripture” (64) and tended against allegory that was not tethered to the literal sense. Gregory of Nyssa saw the importance of the spiritual sense (analogy) being drawn from the historical narrative. In other words, “the spiritual senses flow from and are in harmony with the literal sense” (70). Dionysius the Areopagite saw the interpretation of Scripture not as an innovation, but a part of a tradition (73). He saw the reading of Scripture as an act of prayer and worship as God draws His people into His presence (73). Later patristic exegesis demonstrates a tethering and harmonizing of the literal and spiritual sense of Scripture.

The medieval era continued to develop the patristic contribution to exegesis. Augustine of Hippo distinguished between signs and things; signs are means to an end that signify some “thing” (a substantial reality) which functions as a sign pointing to a more ultimate reality (81). He further distinguishes between the enjoyment and use of things. Applied to biblical interpretation, “Scripture rightly used always and everywhere must point to God and the creature’s ultimate enjoyment of God for God’s own sake” (82).  Augustine viewed right interpretation as being guided by the rule of faith, and love for God and neighbor (82, 86). Augustine “read Scripture looking for true doctrine, for moral edification, for the love of God and neighbour, for eschatological hope, for a word to the church” (92). John Cassian further developed spiritual knowledge by dividing theoretical knowledge into historical interpretation and the spiritual sense. The spiritual sense he further divided into three: tropological, allegorical, and analogical (92-93). What followed was the exegetical use of the Quadriga: the fourfold interpretation of Scripture (96). The first sense is the historical: the letter; the literal, straightforward interpretation; the genre; figures of speech. The second sense is the allegorical: what is implied; types of Christ and the church; what one is to believe (faith). The third sense is the tropological: a figure or a turn of phrase; the moral sense or meaning of Scripture; what one is to do (love). The fourth sense is the anagogical: ascending to the heavenly destination and its realities; pointing to the fulfilled eschaton; the eternal kingdom (hope). The three later senses are the spiritual sense that flows from the historical literal sense (97-98). The later medieval exegetical development, with figures such as Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra, saw a synthesizing of the literal-grammatical sense and the spiritual sense being built upon it and limited by it. There was agreement with Augustine of Dacia that “the letter teaches what happened, the allegory what you should believe, the moral sense what you should do, the anagogy what you should hope” (80, 107). Medieval exegesis demonstrates that spiritual exposition is to be carefully tied to the literal sense. 

The early modern era shifted to a historical approach to biblical exegesis, emphasizing the human authorial intention, which had the effect of undervaluing Scripture as “divine revelation to be contemplated and heeded” (117). It was also affected by a skepticism of traditional doctrinal interpretation. Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, famous for his Greek New Testament, preferred the plain sense of Scripture but valued the church fathers’ spiritual interpretation.  Like Erasmus, Martin Luther was interested in returning to the original languages. Luther derided the four senses of Scripture. He does not prohibit allegory, but limited it to illustration of doctrine elsewhere established according to a literal sense (123). John Calvin was well-known for his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was a theological handbook intended to direct the reader to his commentaries for extended interpretation. His interpretive emphasis was to discover the authorial intent (133), stressed the literal sense of the text (135). The post-Reformation figures such as William Perkins and Francis Turretin did not abandon the importance of tradition and the spiritual sense, but viewed it as illustration for doctrine and not its proof. The reformers and the early modern exegesis were progenitors in a line that led to modern historical-critical exegesis (151).

The historical-critical era narrowed the focus of exegesis to human authorial intent, a reconstruction, a scientific method of studying the bible in universities, and a biblicist approach to interpretation severed from tradition. The Remonstrants’ misuse of the perspicuity of Scripture viewed Scripture as a rational exercise which was being interpreted by natural reason, whether regenerate or unregenerate, and suggested that for reason to function properly, it must be unaffected by the interference of affections or presuppositions. Furthermore, there was an escalation of prioritizing the literal sense to the near exclusion of any spiritual sense (157-58). The Remonstrants’ oversimplification of the perspicuity of Scripture, and abandonment of the presumed hindrances of confessions, did not lead to greater interpretive unity but rather to greater obscurity. What was once a radical position which focused on human reason’s ability to interpret Scripture to the exclusion of the spiritual sense and traditional Christian doctrine, became mainstream historical-critical method. Enter the Enlightenment era’s endarkenment of biblical exegesis where the right method depends on the capability of human reason, and the highest authority of interpretation rests in the individual (161-62). Correct execution of methodology necessitated freeing the mind from theological prejudices (162). The subsequent desire to tread one’s own path meant the severing of biblical interpretation from traditional dogma (168). The historical-critical exegesis was guided by doubt, the preeminence of natural reason, a single, literal human authorial meaning, a movement away from the spiritual sense, a rejection of the traditional view of inspiration, the exclusion of dogma, and the rule of faith that constrains personal interpretation, secular academic biblical study, and the irrelevance of virtue and faith.

Letter and Spirit

The ignoring of the letter in premodern unbridled allegory and the ignoring of the spirit in modern extreme historic criticism are problematic and incompatible approaches. The abuses of literal and spiritual approaches to Scripture do not nullify their use, but demonstrate the need for proper controls. The first control for allegory is the literal sense: “interpretation should be connected to and based on the literal sense of the passage” (206). The second control for allegory is the analogy of Scripture: “the wider principle of using clear Scriptures to help explain obscure ones can be applied to spiritual interpretation” (206). The third control for allegory is the analogy of faith: interpretation must be in agreement with “the fundamental points of the faith handed down by the apostles and reflected in the whole of Scripture,” as well as those interpretations which “arise from and be confirmed by the church” (206). The first control for historical criticism is the spiritual sense: “the literal and the spiritual approaches must balance one another” (207). The second control for historical criticism is the analogy of Scripture: the underlying unity of Scripture legitimizes the use of Scripture to explain Scripture. The third control for historical criticism is interpretive humility: “humility must be at the top of the list of exegetical virtues,” as a proud person is “less likely to listen to the wisdom of others” (209). Stanglin’s proposed way forward of “retrieval exegesis” is not a separation of the letter and the spirit but keeping the literal sense tied to historical-grammatical interpretation and a recovery of the legitimate spiritual sense regulated by the rule of faith, the unity of Scripture, the virtue of the interpreter, and in accordance with the history of interpretation in the church. 

Conclusion

The Letter and Spirit of Biblical Interpretation is informative, clear, accessible, interesting, and very helpful. While it is concise in its survey of important figures over broad periods, it is not exhaustive. It likewise does not comprehensively explain the controls necessary to avoid unbridled misuse of interpretive approaches. There is significantly more attention given to the historical survey than there is to retrieval exegesis. This book would serve well on an introductory level to the history of biblical exegesis.

While the biblicist’s cry of “just me and my bible” may seem prudent at first glance, it is not adhering to sola scriptura’s authority of Scripture, but to nuda scriptura’s authority of the individual.  Biblical interpretation is not to be done in autonomous isolation, but with the church. The church’s task today to rightly interpret Scripture is not in isolation to the church over the past two millennia since the first century. Each generation is not a clean slate dispensation, but is the spiritual temple with the spiritual presence of Christ. The work of interpretation and theology is the fruit of Christ’s presence in the church by His Spirit and instrumentally through His victory gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. To say that the exegetical work of the past is irrelevant today is to severely undervalue the presence of Christ and to treat His victory gifts with scorn. The interpretation of Scripture is not performed in isolation, but rather, interpretation and theology are accomplished in an ecclesiastical culture that transcends language, nation, era, and millennia.