This article will not pretend to be a panacea or a Rosetta Stone upon the question of interpretation, but rather it simply brings up topics & issues for consideration.  Indeed, it is this writer’s position that despite the mass of “scholars” who have postulated that their work is the key to understanding the mysteries of the Bible, there is not one simple hermeneutic that can be applied to the entire Bible. 

It is neither accurate nor fair to say a person is a “literalist” or an “allegorist” when it comes to biblical hermeneutics.  Nor does context always reveal the intended meaning, as we have seen biblical authors often take earlier accounts & expand upon them in a way that would not have been evident otherwise.

So, let us explore a few methodologies as we interact with interpretative principles.

Regulative Principle vs. Normative Principle

These two theological principles are typically associated with the way a congregation worships.  The Regulative Principle would say worship should only include those elements expressly commanded or clearly instituted in the Bible for New Testament worship.  An example of this can be seen in how some congregations do not allow musical instruments.

Whereas the Normative Principle in contrast would say that whatever is not expressly prohibited by Scripture & is agreeable to the congregation is permissible.  An example of this may be the use of skits or plays as sermons rather than lecture.

Even though the Regulative & Normative Principles typically deal only with worship methodologies, we can see how these same principles have been applied to interpretative principles.

Prohibitive vs. Permissive Silence

These two theological principles, which may have deeper roots, but for the sake of this article are principles that sprang up during the Reformation.  The Prohibitive Silence principle, which was traditionally advocated by Ulrich Zwingli, posits that if the Bible is silent about an issue then it is prohibited.

Whereas the Permissive Silence principle, which was traditionally advocated by Martin Luther, posits that if the Bible is silent about an issue then it is permissible.

It seems both of these principles could be settled by the Scripture that says:

But we aren’t so concerned with human action, as we know also that we are not under law but under grace, but being so is no warrant to sin (& sins as actions vs. sin as a condition is a whole other topic).

What we are concerned about is how these principles apply to biblical hermeneutics if at all.

For example, as the Bible states about the creation story, that the “heavens & earth” were created in six days & expressly tells us about “evening & the morning” making a “day”, can we without direct revelation in the N.T. say that this was not the physical earth created & these were not typical solar nights & days?  Perhaps someone would point out that it seems that the sun & moon were not created until the fourth “day” in verses 14-19 of Genesis 1.  This certainly seems to leave the door open to concluding that the earlier verses referring to “days” need not be 24-hour periods.

These are the kind of interpretive puzzles that present themselves.  Often, a “scholar” will claim to have solved one of these riddles thus unlocking the totality of interpretative methodology, that we merely apply this methodology to the whole Bible & it unfolds with ease.  This is never the case.

Literal vs. Allegorical

These two theological principles have been battling back & forth for centuries.  The ironic thing as we alluded to earlier, is that there is no such thing as being completely literal or completely allegorical.  Even the most ardent “literalist” would not say they envision Jesus coming back with a literal flaming sword protruding from His mouth.  Nor would the most zealous allegorist deem that the twelve disciples never existed but were allegories for the twelve tribes.  These two views meet somewhere in the middle of the context.

But even this doesn’t end the struggle between the two positions, for who gets to decide when something is literal or allegorical (sometimes also referred to as “covenantal”). Both positions advocate that context dictates which interpretive method needs to be applied. Both positions claim it is “obvious” by the context when a passage should be taken literal or allegorical.  If this is so, then why still all the debate?  Next in line come the accusations that the other position is “dishonest” with the text or not learned enough.

How do we solve this family feud over interpretive principles? Does the Bible have an overall pattern?

Again, this is not meant to be an article about a hermeneutical Rosetta Stone but perhaps this passage sheds light on this issue more than any:

If we could simplify an overall pattern to the Bible this would seem to be it.  I also like to call it the “macro-micro-reapplied macro” pattern, in that all through the Bible we see God first showing us the big picture (the macro), then narrowing it down (the micro), then reapplying the big picture but in a bit different way than the original big picture (the reapplied macro).

We see this in the Creation Story.  God creates the natural heavens & earth (the macro), then He narrows it down by creating a specified “heavens & earth” in the nation of Israel with the nation representing “earth” & the Temple representing “heaven” (the micro). Lastly, God promises to create a New Heavens & Earth to replace the old.  This is not a natural heavens & earth, nor is it merely a nation & Temple representing those elements, but in this final form it is a covenantal “heavens & earth” wherein God dwells directly with mankind.  A kind of  “paradise restored”.

Understanding the Bible in this manner does not force the reader to assume a literalist or an allegorist position, nor does it force the reader to figure out which “scholar” can best describe the context of a passage.  This methodology is self-interpreting. It takes into consideration ALL of the aforementioned interpretive principles with the governing force being “first the natural then the spiritual”.

Where the literalist often fails is that he will see X = physical/literal thus to be consistent Y must = physical/literal.  Whereas the allegorist/covenantalist often fails because he will apply the literalists method but in reverse. Y = allegorical/covenantal thus to be consistent X must = allegorical/covenantal.  Both of these approaches fail to consider 1 Cor 15:46 (also Hebrews 9:23-24).

The macro-micro-reapplied macro pattern can be seen everywhere in the Bible.  In how Adam was the “king” of the world & then how God allowed Israel to institute earthly kings to rule over them & then to how ultimately the final King (Messiah/Christ) would rule all Kingdoms.

So, if we are going to get closer to a proper biblical hermeneutic let us first consider 1 Cor 15:46 coupled with Hebrews 9:23-24 & the pattern we see all over the Bible.  The natural things, the copies are merely shadows pointing us to the reality.  We ought not drag the copies onto the realities so as not to see the realities nor should we blot out the copies by covering them up with the reality.  This is a marvelous typology God has given mankind so that we can better understand His unfailing, unchanging character.  If we fail to use God’s own pattern to understand Him via His word, then I fear we will not understand Him at all but instead we will strain out gnats & swallow camels or worse, we will dwell upon our mere speculations.