Methods of Biblical Interpretation
Methods of Biblical Interpretation: Understanding What God Intended to Communicate
When studying Scripture, we must remember a principle that I believe is fundamental to biblical interpretation: God’s Word is written from His perspective for our perspective. Our responsibility is not to determine what we would like Scripture to mean, but to understand what God intended to communicate through it. Unfortunately, Christians do not always agree on how Scripture should be interpreted. Throughout history, various methods of biblical interpretation have developed, each approaching Scripture with different assumptions about its meaning and how that meaning should be discovered.
Some emphasize the historical and grammatical meaning of the text. Others seek additional spiritual, symbolic, or hidden meanings. Still others approach Scripture primarily for personal application or examine it through the assumptions of human philosophy and reason. Not every method is necessarily wrong in everything it proposes. However, neither should we assume that every method is equally reliable.
The question we must ask is whether a particular approach allows Scripture to communicate what God intended or whether it permits the interpreter to impose meanings upon Scripture that God has not revealed. To examine this question, we will consider five commonly discussed methods of biblical interpretation: allegorical, mystical, devotional, rationalistic, and literal or grammatical-historical interpretation.
1. The Allegorical Method
What Is Allegorical Interpretation?
Allegorical interpretation seeks meanings beyond the immediate historical or ordinary meaning of a passage. It often treats people, places, events, and objects as representations of other spiritual realities. The method has historical connections to ancient Greek interpretation, particularly attempts to explain traditional religious narratives in ways compatible with philosophical beliefs. It was subsequently employed in various forms by Jewish and Christian interpreters.
However, we must distinguish between allegory as a legitimate literary form and allegorization as a method of assigning meanings to Scripture. Scripture itself contains allegorical language. For example, in Galatians 4:21–31, Paul uses Hagar and Sarah to illustrate two covenants. He explicitly establishes the relationship between the historical individuals and the spiritual realities he is explaining.
We therefore cannot reject allegory simply because it is allegory. The concern arises when an interpreter assigns symbolic meanings to biblical people or events without sufficient evidence that Scripture intended those meanings.
The Problem With Unsupported Allegorization
Consider someone interpreting the account of David and Goliath. The historical account concerns David’s confrontation with Goliath and God’s deliverance of Israel through David. An interpreter might draw a useful comparison between Goliath and the difficulties Christians face in life. However, if that interpreter declares that Goliath actually represents personal financial problems, David’s five stones represent five particular spiritual disciplines, and the sling represents prayer, we have every reason to ask where Scripture establishes those meanings.
An illustration may be useful without being the intended interpretation. The danger of unrestricted allegorization is that the interpreter can gradually become the authority over the passage. Rather than discovering what Scripture communicates, the interpreter begins determining what its people, places, and events must represent. My concern is not with allegory itself, but with assigning meanings to Scripture that Scripture does not establish.
Another Example: The Days of Creation
Another example worth considering is the interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1. Throughout the chapter, Scripture repeatedly refers to the evening and the morning as marking each successive day of creation. Some understand these as ordinary days, while others interpret them as representing extended periods of time, a literary arrangement, or even symbolic stages in God’s creative work.
Consider Genesis 1:5: “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5, KJV). There are several approaches to understanding this language:
- Literal or grammatical-historical: The days are understood as ordinary days, with evening and morning describing their progression.
- Figurative or literary: The days are understood as a literary framework used to communicate God’s creative work, rather than necessarily describing six ordinary days.
- Allegorical: The days are assigned meanings beyond the creation account itself, such as representing six great periods of human history or stages of spiritual development.
- Mystical: The days, evenings, and mornings are understood to contain hidden spiritual meanings that are not established by the passage itself.
However, we must distinguish between an interpretation based upon the actual language and context of Scripture and one that assigns symbolic meanings without sufficient biblical support. For example, the Hebrew word yom, translated day, can refer to an ordinary day or a broader period of time, depending upon its context. Genesis 2:4 itself uses the expression “in the day” when referring more broadly to God’s creative work: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:4, KJV).
Therefore, merely questioning whether a particular use of the word day describes twenty-four hours does not automatically constitute allegorical interpretation. The argument may instead be based on language and context, whether or not we ultimately find it persuasive. However, if someone claims that the six days represent six thousand years of human history, six stages of spiritual development, or some other symbolic arrangement, we must ask what biblical evidence establishes that relationship. The same principle applies to the expressions evening and morning. We should first seek to understand what these words communicate within the creation account before assigning additional meanings to them.
My concern is not that someone recognizes the possibility of figurative language. My concern is when a figurative or allegorical interpretation is adopted without adequately establishing why the language should be understood that way. And where such an interpretation cannot be adequately established, I believe we are best to retain the ordinary meaning of the passage rather than replace it with a meaning that Scripture itself does not clearly support.
2. The Mystical Method
What Is Mystical Interpretation?
The mystical method of biblical interpretation generally seeks spiritual meanings beyond the immediate or obvious meaning of a passage. Historically, the term has been used in several ways, and this is where I believe we need to exercise particular care.
- Mystical or spiritualizing interpretation may seek hidden meanings beneath the words of Scripture.
- Anagogical interpretation is concerned particularly with heavenly, eternal, or future significance.
- Spiritual illumination concerns the Holy Spirit’s work in helping believers understand what God has revealed.
These approaches overlap in some respects, but they are not identical. For example, the traditional anagogical approach might interpret earthly Jerusalem as pointing toward the heavenly Jerusalem. There is biblical support for recognizing both realities. Hebrews 12:22 speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, and Revelation 21:2 describes the New Jerusalem descending from heaven. However, recognizing the heavenly Jerusalem does not mean that every biblical reference to Jerusalem must be interpreted as referring to heaven. The context must determine what is being discussed.
My Concern With Mystical Interpretation
My principal concern is not that Scripture contains spiritual truths. It obviously does. Nor do I deny that Scripture can reveal significance beyond what its original audience immediately understood. My concern is with the assumption that hidden meanings may be discovered and treated as authoritative without sufficient biblical evidence. If someone claims that a passage possesses a deeper spiritual meaning, what establishes that meaning?
Is it the language and context of the passage?
Is it something God has revealed elsewhere in Scripture?
Or is it simply what the interpreter believes the passage represents?
These are very different foundations for interpretation. Consider the crossing of the Jordan River. Some interpret the Jordan as representing death and the Promised Land as representing heaven. That may provide a useful devotional illustration, but Scripture does not directly establish that symbolic relationship.
Furthermore, Israel’s experience in Canaan involved warfare, disobedience, judgment, and continuing struggles. These are hardly descriptions of heaven. Therefore, while we may draw an illustration from Israel’s journey, we should not automatically present that illustration as the meaning God intended.
We should neither invent spiritual meanings that God has not revealed nor reject spiritual meanings that God has revealed.
Can Scripture Contain Meaning Beyond What the Human Author Understood?
I believe it can. First Peter 1:10–12 describes the prophets searching into the meaning and circumstances of the salvation about which they had prophesied. Daniel 12:8–9 records Daniel acknowledging that he did not understand what had been revealed to him. In Luke 24:27, Jesus explained the things concerning Himself throughout Moses and the Prophets. These passages demonstrate that God’s revelation may possess significance that was not fully understood by those who first received or communicated it.
However, that does not mean we have permission to invent additional meanings. There is a difference between allowing Scripture to explain Scripture and claiming to have discovered something Scripture does not establish.
What About the Holy Spirit?
Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit plays an essential role in our understanding of God’s revelation. First Corinthians 2:12–14 discusses the Spirit’s work in helping believers understand what God has freely given. However, we must distinguish between the Holy Spirit helping us understand Scripture and someone claiming that the Holy Spirit has personally revealed an interpretation that cannot be established from Scripture.
Otherwise, two people could offer contradictory interpretations of the same passage, both claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed their understanding. How would we determine which interpretation was correct? Surely, we cannot simply accept whichever interpreter appears more spiritual or persuasive. God’s Word must remain the authority by which our interpretations are tested.
Distinguishing Allegorical, Mystical, and Mythological Approaches
Before discussing myths and mythology, it is important to clarify that allegorical, mystical, and mythological do not mean the same thing, even though they are sometimes used together.
| Term | What it means | My principal concern |
|---|---|---|
| Allegorical | Interpreting people, events, or objects as representing other truths or realities. | Assigning symbolic meanings that Scripture does not establish. |
| Mystical | Seeking deeper or hidden spiritual meanings beyond the ordinary meaning of the text. | Treating personally discovered spiritual meanings as authoritative without biblical evidence. |
| Mythical or mythological | Classifying narratives as myths, sometimes in an academic sense that does not necessarily imply falsehood. | Using terminology commonly associated with fiction to describe accounts presented as God’s revelation. |
Allegorical interpretation asks: What does this person, event, or object represent? Mystical interpretation asks: What deeper spiritual meaning might be hidden beneath the words? A mythological reading concerns how a narrative is classified or understood, including whether its significance is theological, symbolic, historical, or some combination of these. It is not necessarily a separate method of interpretation comparable to allegorical or mystical interpretation.
Consider again the account of David and Goliath. An allegorical interpretation might claim that Goliath represents our personal struggles and David’s five stones represent five spiritual disciplines. A mystical interpretation might claim that the account contains a hidden spiritual message revealed to the interpreter. A mythological reading might classify the account as a traditional sacred narrative communicating theological truths without necessarily affirming its historical accuracy. These are examples of possible approaches, not claims that everyone using these terms would necessarily make.
My concerns are therefore distinct. I do not reject allegory or spiritual significance where Scripture establishes them. I reject assigning meanings that cannot be adequately supported by Scripture. Separately, I question the wisdom of describing God’s revealed Word using terminology so commonly associated with falsehood.
3. The Question of Myths and Mythological Interpretation
There is another concern I have regarding the terminology sometimes used when discussing biblical interpretation. Although the words mystical and mythical have different meanings, biblical accounts are sometimes described as myths or mythology, particularly in certain academic approaches to Scripture.
Those using this terminology frequently explain that the word myth does not necessarily mean something false. In academic discussions, a myth may be defined as a traditional or sacred narrative that communicates foundational beliefs, explains origins, or expresses truths about God, humanity, and the world.
I understand that distinction. However, my concern is whether using the term myth to describe Scripture is consistent with Scripture’s own warnings concerning myths.
Paul tells Timothy: “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4). Again, Paul warns: “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:4). Peter makes an especially important statement: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). The Greek word translated fables in these passages is mythos, from which we derive the English word myth. Peter specifically contrasts myths with the testimony of those who witnessed Christ’s majesty.
This raises an important question. If Scripture warns us against following myths and explicitly distinguishes apostolic testimony from myths, why should we describe the very accounts Scripture presents as God’s revelation using that same terminology? Some will argue that the modern academic definition of myth differs from the meaning intended by the biblical writers. That distinction should be acknowledged. A modern technical term does not automatically carry every meaning associated with the ancient Greek word from which it developed.
Nevertheless, I believe the terminology creates unnecessary confusion. In fact, I must admit that the deliberate use of the term myth to describe biblical accounts makes me suspicious. Surely, there are other words available that could communicate the intended meaning without introducing the possibility of suggesting that Scripture contains falsehoods. Terms such as sacred narrative, theological narrative, symbolic account, or figurative language may be more appropriate, depending upon what the interpreter is actually trying to describe.
So why choose the word myth, a term that is so commonly understood to describe something fictional or untrue? If the intention is not to question the historical accuracy or truthfulness of Scripture, why select terminology that can so easily communicate precisely that impression? I am not suggesting that everyone who uses the term has dishonest intentions. However, I do believe it is reasonable to question why such potentially misleading terminology is preferred when other, less ambiguous descriptions are available.
If someone describes Genesis, the Flood, the Exodus, or the resurrection of Christ as a myth, many readers will naturally understand that to mean the events did not actually happen. If the person using the term does not intend that meaning, why use language that so easily communicates it? More importantly, we must distinguish between recognizing literary features within Scripture and treating biblical history as though its historical truth is irrelevant.
Scripture contains poetry, parables, figurative language, prophecy, historical narrative, and other literary forms. Recognizing these forms does not require us to classify historical events as mythology. My concern is that we should not use terminology that obscures the distinction Scripture itself makes between God’s revealed truth and humanly devised myths. This does not mean that everyone who uses the academic term myth is deliberately denying Scripture. However, it does mean that the terminology requires careful definition and justification rather than being accepted without question.
4. The Devotional Method
What Is Devotional Interpretation?
The devotional method approaches Scripture primarily for personal spiritual encouragement, instruction, and application. Throughout Christian history, believers have read Scripture devotionally, seeking to understand how God’s Word should influence their lives. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Indeed, Scripture is intended to instruct and transform those who receive it.
Paul writes: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The problem arises when personal application replaces the actual meaning of a passage.
Interpretation Must Precede Application
Consider Jeremiah 29:11. This passage is frequently quoted as though God were personally promising every believer a particular future of earthly prosperity and success. However, the passage was originally addressed to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. Understanding that historical setting is essential. Can Christians draw encouragement from God’s faithfulness to His promises?
Certainly. But we should not automatically take a promise made to a particular people under particular circumstances and declare that God has made the identical promise to every individual believer. There is a difference between what Scripture means and how its truth may be applied. A passage may have many legitimate applications, but those applications must remain consistent with what the passage actually communicates. The devotional use of Scripture is therefore valuable, provided that our desire for personal encouragement does not override the meaning God intended.
5. The Rationalistic Method
What Is Rationalistic Interpretation?
The rationalistic method, as described in the original material, approaches Scripture through the assumptions of human reason, often treating the Bible primarily as a human document rather than accepting it as God’s inspired revelation. Historically, certain naturalistic approaches have rejected supernatural explanations before examining the biblical evidence.
For example, an interpreter might attempt to explain Christ’s miracles as misunderstandings, exaggerations, or events that had entirely natural causes. However, we must be careful not to confuse rationalistic naturalism with the legitimate use of reason.
Reasoning is essential to understanding Scripture. We use reason when examining grammar, comparing passages, evaluating historical circumstances, identifying apparent contradictions, and determining whether an interpretation is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
The problem is not reason itself. The problem arises when human reasoning or philosophical assumptions are elevated above God’s revelation. If someone begins with the assumption that miracles cannot occur, then any biblical account describing a miracle must be explained away before the evidence is even considered.
That is not allowing Scripture to communicate what it claims. It is imposing a predetermined conclusion upon Scripture. Conversely, accepting Scripture as God’s Word does not mean abandoning careful thought or refusing to examine evidence. We should use the faculties God has provided to understand what He has revealed. Our reasoning must serve the interpretation of Scripture rather than become the authority that determines what Scripture is permitted to say.
6. The Literal or Grammatical-Historical Method
What Is Literal Interpretation?
The literal or grammatical-historical method seeks to understand Scripture according to the ordinary meaning of its language within its historical, grammatical, literary, and cultural context. This does not mean that every word must be interpreted in a rigidly literal manner. Language naturally includes figures of speech, metaphors, symbols, comparisons, poetry, and other forms of expression.
For example, when Jesus says: “I am the door” (John 10:9). We understand that He is using figurative language. We do not imagine that Christ is describing Himself as a wooden door with hinges. Understanding the intended meaning of figurative language is part of proper grammatical-historical interpretation.
When the Meaning Is Uncertain
It is also my belief that when we cannot adequately establish from Scripture, its context, or the ordinary use of language that a particular passage is intended to be allegorical, symbolic, or metaphorical, we are best to understand it literally unless sufficient biblical evidence demonstrates otherwise.
This does not mean that we should ignore figures of speech, symbolism, or other literary forms. Scripture clearly uses all of these. However, I believe the responsibility rests with the interpreter who proposes a symbolic or figurative meaning to demonstrate why that interpretation is warranted.
Otherwise, what prevents us from assigning symbolic meanings to any passage simply because we find its literal meaning difficult to understand, uncomfortable to accept, or inconsistent with our existing theological beliefs?
When Scripture provides sufficient reason to understand something figuratively, we should interpret it figuratively. When it does not, I believe the literal understanding should remain our starting point rather than an interpretation we feel obligated to explain away.
Literal Interpretation Does Not Exclude Spiritual Truth
The Bible is a spiritual book communicating spiritual truths. Recognizing those truths does not require us to abandon the grammatical and historical meaning of Scripture. Consider Hebrews 8:5, where the earthly tabernacle is described as a copy and shadow of heavenly things. The earthly tabernacle was real. Its historical existence is not denied because Scripture also identifies its heavenly significance. Likewise, Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 10:11 that events involving Israel were recorded for the instruction of later believers. The events actually happened, but God also intended them to communicate lessons beyond their immediate historical circumstances. Historical reality and spiritual significance are not mutually exclusive.
Literal Interpretation Does Not Exclude Prophetic Significance
This becomes especially important when studying biblical prophecy. Some interpreters understand references to Israel, Jerusalem, the temple, the throne of David, and the coming kingdom as describing actual historical or future realities. Others understand these references primarily as symbols of Christ, the Church, or heavenly realities. We cannot determine which interpretation is correct merely by declaring one literal and the other spiritual.
We must examine the context and allow Scripture to establish the meaning. For example, Revelation 1:20 explicitly identifies the seven lampstands as seven churches. Here, Scripture itself explains the symbolism. However, this does not mean that every lampstand mentioned elsewhere in Scripture must represent a church. A symbol established in one passage does not automatically establish the meaning of that symbol in every other passage.
The Importance of Progressive Revelation
There is another consideration that I believe must remain central to biblical interpretation. Scripture identifies God as its ultimate Author. Consequently, we should not assume that the complete significance of everything God revealed was necessarily understood by the original human author or audience. God may explain through subsequent revelation what was not fully understood earlier.
This is particularly evident in the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Christ’s explanation of the Scriptures in Luke 24 demonstrates that earlier revelation must be understood in light of what God subsequently revealed concerning Him. However, progressive revelation does not authorize us to invent meanings. It requires us to allow Scripture itself to explain and develop what God has revealed.
7. How Should We Evaluate an Interpretation?
Having examined these methods, I believe we can establish several principles that should govern our study of Scripture.
First, we must seek to understand what the passage communicates through its words, grammar, historical circumstances, and literary context.
Second, we must examine how the passage relates to the rest of Scripture. An interpretation should not require us to disregard other biblical passages that address the same subject.
Third, we must recognize figurative language, symbolism, allegory, and typology where Scripture establishes their use.
Fourth, we must distinguish between interpretation and application. A useful devotional illustration does not automatically establish the intended meaning of a passage.
Fifth, we must distinguish between what Scripture explicitly teaches, what may reasonably be inferred, and what remains speculation.
Finally, we must remain willing to reconsider our conclusions when the biblical evidence requires it.
No interpreter is infallible. That includes pastors, theologians, scholars, teachers, and those of us who devote considerable time to studying Scripture independently. The authority belongs to God’s Word, not to the person interpreting it.
Conclusion: God’s Word Must Remain the Final Authority
Of the methods examined, I believe the grammatical-historical approach provides the most reliable foundation for understanding Scripture, particularly when it is accompanied by careful comparison with the whole of God’s revelation. However, we must not confuse that approach with a refusal to recognize spiritual or prophetic significance. Scripture itself establishes that historical events, people, institutions, and places may also possess spiritual significance.
The issue is not whether such significance exists. The issue is who determines what that significance is. If God has revealed it, we should accept it. If Scripture does not establish it, we should be careful not to present our interpretation as though God has definitively said it. This is especially important when dealing with mystical interpretations, prophetic symbolism, or claims that the Holy Spirit has revealed a hidden meaning. We should neither reject an interpretation merely because it recognizes spiritual significance nor accept it simply because someone claims to have discovered a deeper meaning.
The question must always remain: What biblical evidence establishes that this is what God intended to communicate? God’s Word is written from His perspective for our perspective. Our responsibility is therefore not to impose our perspective upon His Word, but to seek to understand what He has revealed.
We should neither invent spiritual meanings that God has not revealed nor reject spiritual meanings that God has revealed. And when we cannot establish a proposed meaning from Scripture, we should have the humility to acknowledge that it remains an interpretation or possibility rather than presenting it as something God has definitively said.