 |  |
No.11.
Various systems of Interpretation Examined.
pp. 148 - 151
Before one has learned by experience the necessity for giving instructions both
negatively as well as positively, one is inclined to brush aside anything that does not
appear to go straight to the point. A fuller acquaintance with human nature will bring one
to realize the value of indicating what not to do as a supplement to the positive
instruction. Anticipating the conclusion of this article, we state that the only method of
interpretation that commends itself to us is known as the "grammatico-historical" system,
but we feel sure the superiority of this method over all others cannot be appreciated
unless those other methods are at least known. It will therefore be no waste of time if we
consider and compare the various methods that have been adopted, in order that we may
more fully appreciate the one which we here advocate.
(1) The Allegorical System.
The men whose names come to mind when the Allegorical system is mentioned,
are Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, born about B.C.20, and Origen, a Greek Christian,
185-254A.D. Philo's theory is based upon the idea that the Scripture has a twofold
message, the exoteric addressed to the psuchikoi (the natural man, the soulish man) and
the esoteric which is addressed to and discerned by the pneumatikoi (the spiritually
minded man). One has but to read I Cor. 2: 13, 14, 15 to realize that Philo had a
substratum of truth for his exposition of the O.T.; it is however the abuse and
misapplication of these features that rendered his interpretations of little value.
As an example, we observe that the four rivers named in Gen. 2: 10-14 which remain
rivers and nothing more to the illiterate and unilluminated, become, in the allegorical
interpretation, four virtues, namely, prudence, temperance, courage and justice. We must
not confuse this allegorical interpretation however with the legitimate use of true type
and symbol, for the Scriptures abound with these figures; but we must be on our guard
against finding deeper and spiritual significations where none are intended, for sooner or
later these will distort both doctrine, prophecy and practice.
(2) The Mystical System.
The mystical system of interpretation seems to have been the result of a revulsion
from the cut-and-dried teaching of the Schoolmen. The literal sense of the Scripture, in
this system is discarded, and manifold shades and depths of meaning were sought in
every word of Scripture. Tyndale has made some trenchant remarks on this system,
which are worth repeating:
"They divide the Scriptures into four senses, the literal, tropological (i.e. figurative),
allegorical, and anagogical (i.e. mystical)--the literal sense has become nothing at all
. . . . . Twenty doctors expound one text twenty ways, and with an antitheme of half an
inch some of them draw a thread of nine days long . . . . . They not only say that the
literal sense profiteth nothing, but also that it is hurtful and noisome and killeth the soul.
And this they prove by the text of Paul, II Cor. iii 6 `The letter killeth but the spirit
giveth life'. Lo! say they, the literal sense killeth, the spiritual sense giveth life."