The Fourfold Interpretation of Scripture; Part 1

How to interpret the Bible

We live in a privileged era for Bible reading. We, more than any other generation have access to scripture. At no time in history have laypeople ever had such incredible opportunity. As well as having printed Bibles, we have at our disposal access to the internet, which in turn gives us access to a plethora of commentaries, Hebrew and Greek word studies, as well as scores of books written about the culture, philosophy and beliefs of the ancient world. For the earliest Christians, they had scrolls that had been handwritten and passed from group to group. It is unlikely that anyone in the 1st or 2nd century had access to what we call the New Testament in its fulness. Individual access to the holy scripture was limited, as was education. Not everyone could read, in fact the vast majority could not. On a weekly basis scripture was read aloud in the common tongue at Christian gatherings, and this would have been how the average Christian came into contact with the sacred texts. During the mediæval ages before the Reformation this became problematic as the Church continued to read scripture in Latin, despite the fact that most people could not speak Latin, and literacy was still low. Over the next few hundred years, the translation of the Bible into the common tongue,  the invention of printing press, and the mandate for mass education, among other things, have led to this proliferated exposure to scripture.

Indubitably, the fact that scripture is now more or less ubiquitous has brought about unprecedented good. We should expect that the ability to read scripture on a daily basis, whenever and wherever we are, at least on paper, ought to mean that the thoughts and ideas on the page or screen ought to permeate our minds and actions Furthermore,  under the previous regime, the Church leaders, figures within the institution charged with protecting the souls of the believers, were the only ones with access to scripture, and were among the few who could read or understand it. This inevitably lead to corruption. The same issues no longer ought to exist. With scripture now resting in the hands of the masses, we should expect corruption to be called out, and weak leadership to be questioned. However, this blessing has not come without a curse. Previously, scripture was interpreted by the Church; the Tradition of the fathers stood alongside Scripture as an interpretive tool. With the dawn of the pocket bible, there is now the potential for as many interpretations of scripture as there are interpreters. Every Tom, Dick and Larry (Furtick) has an opinion, and this extends to the current writer and reader. Why is this an issue? Firstly, the diversity in interpretation over the last 500 years has had rather extreme effect. There are over 100,000 denominations of Christianity in the USA alone. The Church of Christ, for which Christ prayed for unity, has been (irreversibly?) splintered. Secondly, the Bible is not like any other book.

To say that the Bible is not just any other book is not to say anything novel; biblical scripture, from the earliest stages, has been considered sacred. A large reason for that is that the content of scripture is not like the content of most other texts. While it contains history, legal practice, moral stories, letters etc. these are not simply stating information. First and foremost, scripture is sacred. In other words, the history, law, letters and so on has been included for the sake of understanding and meditating on what is holy. Interpreting and understanding the bible, then, as a sacred text means that it can't merely be interpreted in the same way as any other text. History in the bible is not merely history. The events and occurrences are not recorded for us in order that we might know the chronology of the past.

Scripture, by nature, is meditation literature. That is, it ought to be meditated upon; it helps us better contemplate the divine, and it contains a moral meaning for us. In some cases, this might be obviously stated in the text itself. In other cases it's up to us to work it out. This means that often the face value reading is not the full picture. Since the time of the church fathers, the bible has been interpreted and understood via the 'fourfold interpretation' method. They believed that sacred scripture had four layers of meaning; the literal, the allegorical, the eschatological, and the moral meaning. We often use these four means of interpretation, and quite possibly without knowing we are doing it. We often do this instinctively (this applies to me at least, if not anyone else).

The literal meaning: what the text is saying in its most basic sense. This is the fundamental and foundational understanding of the text. What the human author of the text wanted his contemporary audience to understand. Importantly, this means the plain reading of the text does not rely on later works to be interpreted (ie. the literal meaning of an Old Testament text should not rely on something revealed only in the New Testament). In the literal meaning, words should not be spiritualised or allegorised unless the text itself tells you to do so. An example of this is Psalm 22. In this psalm, the author writes about his pain and suffering, his seeming abandonment. We, in the 21st century (or indeed any time after 33AD) can't help but see Jesus on the cross when we read it. We are right to see Him there (more on this in the allegorical meaning), but in doing so we’ve already bypassed the literal meaning. The human author is writing a lament about his real suffering that he actually experienced. Otherwise, this psalm was meaningless and incomprehensible for centuries until Jesus came and died on the cross. The opening verses have the line 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'. Jesus, on the cross, is quoting this psalm, and we are encouraged to go back and read it through new eyes. So when we read Psalm 22 literally we don't read about Jesus.  You're reading the text as if you were the original intended recipient. It is from this foundation that the other senses or meanings of the text arise.

The allegorical meaning: how this text points beyond itself to the church. There are unnumbered references to Christ, salvation, the eucharist, baptism and the church in the Old Testament. These would not have been apparent to the original reader, or even the human author, but they are there. What I am not referring to is breadcrumbs or clues about the future that the original readers or hearers were given as a way of interpreting the future. Rather, words and ideas that have had new meaning infused. When we read of bread or wine in the Old Testament, more often than not, we are supposed to read this through the lens of the New Testament with the eucharist in mind. To reuse our example of Psalm 22, this is where we read about Jesus. I chose this example because there is no doubt that Jesus is in Psalm 22, Jesus Himself invites us to see Him there.  There are a number of examples in the New Testament where the human authors give us an allegorical interpretation of a text;

i. in 1 Peter 3:21, the flood of Noah is called a baptism.

ii. in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 the Red Sea crossing is called a baptism and the manna in the wilderness is likened to the eucharist

iii. the author Hebrews tells us that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Where does he get that from? Genesis 14:18 tells us that Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. This is an allegorical reading of Genesis 14, seeing bread and wine through the lens of their New Testament significance

iv. in Ephesians 4, Genesis 2:21-25 and John 19:34 are allegorised and the church is called 'one flesh' with Jesus

The above examples are just a few of the cases in the New Testament where the allegorical approach is used by other authors. They are inviting us to read the texts in this way. But do we need an invitation every time we read allegorically? There are many parts of the Old Testament which were not allegorised by the New Testament authors, but that doesn't mean that we should not. As long as it is done correctly.

Some people can understandably be uncomfortable with this reading. It should be stressed that the allegorical meaning a. does not deviate from the literal reading, and b. is in the text. There is a fear that reading the text allegorically will lead to legions of heresies, but this need not be the case (ironically, most heterodox readings of the Bible use ultra-literal approaches to support their dogma).

The eschatological reading: how the text speaks beyond itself to the eschaton (the end). This reading of the text looks beyond the church to the end of time and history, to apocalypse, resurrection, final unity with God in the beatific vision. Much like the allegorical reading, this is based firmly upon the literal reading of the text. The same tools are used. Examples of this reading are easily applied in the psalms once again. We read of kings who rule justly and righteously. In the most basic, literal sense, this is talking about the current king. The flowery and hyperbolic language is not dissimilar to lyrics in 'God save the Queen' or even some football chants (every team in England sings that their team is 'the greatest team the world has ever seen' to the same popular tune). The human author, while writing about the reigning king, is also writing about the ideal king; Jesus. Psalm 2 has the Lord telling the king 'You are my son'. When we apply this to Jesus, we are reading the psalm eschatologically. The literal reading is about the human, temporal king, and it is only by revisiting this text through New Testament eyes do we see this as a reference to Jesus (Acts 13.33). In the eschatological reading, we use the same elements as in the allegorical reading. Let's take bread and wine, for instance. These, in the allegorical reading, speak of the death of Christ and the Church. The same bread and wine in the eschatological reading speak about the marriage feast and the resurrection.

The moral reading: what I ought to do about it. Aside from the literal reading, this should be the least controversial reading. In the moral reading we apply the examples, ethical decisions and principles to our own lives and circumstances. We take texts that were written up to several millennia ago, to a completely different culture and people, in languages no longer spoken, and apply them to our own personal situations. We read ourselves into the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, David, Ruth, Esther, and so on. Again, this is not the literal reading. We don't read Leviticus and erect a tent for God to indwell. We don't read 1 Samuel and throw stones at tall people. But we do read in these texts about how we ought to live. For this reason, the moral reading is probably the most important.

Naturally, this rubric is not easily applied to every passage of scripture, and there are some scriptures (the epistles, for example) where we are not supposed to read anything other than the literal meaning. In some cases, there will be clear opportunities to read the text allegorically, but not eschatologically, for example. This is a rough-around-the-edges summary of what I consider to be the best way to approach scripture. In part 2, we will look specifically at a passage and go through each of the four senses of meaning within it.