Definition of Terms:
- Biblical exegesis: an explanation or interpretation of particular Bible verses
- Perspicuity of Scripture: Protestant belief in the clarity of Scripture as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith; “…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them”.
Jewish Foundations of Biblical Interpretation
Biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics, is the process by which readers seek to understand and apply the meaning of Scripture. In Judaism, the interpretive tradition began early and evolved into a sophisticated discipline. One of the most enduring methods is midrash, a rabbinic technique that not only seeks the literal sense of the Hebrew Bible but also probes beneath the surface for theological, moral, and legal implications. Midrash often approaches the text with questions, expanding narratives to bring out deeper or hidden meanings.
In Jewish Kabbalah, an esoteric tradition that emerged more fully in the medieval period but drew upon earlier interpretive streams, a system known as PaRDeS was developed. This acronym represents four levels of interpretation:
- Peshat – the literal or plain meaning.
- Remez – the allusive or hinted meaning.
- Derash – the allegorical or homiletic meaning.
- Sod – the mystical or secret meaning.
This layered approach recognized that Scripture could speak on multiple levels simultaneously, depending on the spiritual maturity and interpretive lens of the reader.
Jesus, Paul, and the Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture
The New Testament acknowledges the necessity of correct interpretation. St. Peter warns, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (2 Peter 1:20), and later, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture itself, then, warns against private or distorted readings.
Moreover, the Gospels show that even the disciples did not always understand the Scriptures without guidance. In Matthew 13:24–30, Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the weeds, and Peter later asks for its explanation. Similarly, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus interprets the Old Testament to the disciples: “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Likewise, when Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah, the eunuch confesses, “How can I [understand], unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:30–31). These episodes highlight that Scripture requires authoritative interpretation, not just individual discernment.
Jesus often challenged rigidly literal readings of Scripture. For instance, when questioned about Moses’ law on divorce (Deut. 24:1–4), Jesus responded, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Here, Jesus relativizes a Mosaic command, appealing to a deeper moral intention behind the law.
Another example is Jesus’ interpretation of Malachi 4:5–6. While many expected a literal return of Elijah, Jesus teaches that John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy typologically (Matt. 17:10–13). This method, known as typology, interprets persons or events in the Old Testament as foreshadowing greater realities in the New Testament.
St. Paul similarly shifts from a literal to a spiritual reading of Scripture. A former Pharisee who once read the law legalistically, Paul later affirms, “[God] has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Paul’s shift illustrates an early Christian conviction that Scripture must be read through the lens of Christ and under the guidance of the Spirit.
Patristic Hermeneutics and the Development of Senses of Scripture
Early Christians inherited from late Second Temple Judaism a tradition of layered interpretation. The Church Fathers emphasized that Scripture was not always self-evident and often required authoritative teaching and spiritual maturity to interpret properly.
Origen of Alexandria (ca. 184–253 AD) was one of the first to develop a formal interpretive system. He proposed that Scripture could be read on three levels:
- Literal – the historical and grammatical sense.
- Moral – how the text guides behavior.
- Spiritual (or allegorical) – how the text points to Christ and the mysteries of faith.
Origen defended the spiritual reading of the Old Testament, arguing that some literal meanings were insufficient or even morally problematic unless interpreted in light of Christ.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) built upon Origen’s method and developed what would become the four senses of Scripture:
- Literal – the plain historical meaning of the words.
- Allegorical – symbolic interpretations that reveal truths about Christ and the Church.
- Moral (or tropological) – teachings that apply to one’s moral life.
- Anagogical – interpretations related to eternal life and eschatology.
This quadriga became a cornerstone of medieval exegesis and was widely accepted throughout the Latin Church.
Moreover, the Church Fathers emphasized that Scripture must be read within the tradition of the Church. St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius warned against private interpretation divorced from apostolic teaching. St. Vincent of Lérins argued that true Christian doctrine is that which has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.”
Medieval and Scholastic Interpretation
The medieval period witnessed increasing systematization of biblical interpretation. The Glossa Ordinaria, a compilation of commentaries from the Church Fathers, became a standard tool in scriptural study. Thomas Aquinas continued the tradition of the four senses, emphasizing the literal sense as foundational, but always open to spiritual interpretation.
Medieval interpreters often employed allegory and typology to illuminate theological and moral truths. However, they also developed rigorous grammatical and historical methods to preserve doctrinal integrity.
Reformation and Protestant Hermeneutics
The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century marked a decisive shift in biblical interpretation. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized sola Scriptura—Scripture alone as the supreme authority in matters of faith. They insisted on the perspicuity of Scripture—that its essential teachings were clear and understandable to all believers, not just clergy or scholars.
However, this democratization of interpretation also had consequences. Without a central interpretive authority, divergent understandings of Scripture led to fragmentation. By the 17th and 18th centuries, Protestantism had splintered into numerous denominations, each claiming fidelity to Scripture.
Modern Methods and Fundamentalist Reactions
The Enlightenment ushered in a new era of biblical scholarship. In 1835, German theologian David Friedrich Strauss published The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, applying a skeptical historical-critical method that questioned the supernatural elements of the Gospels. Strauss and others viewed biblical narratives through the lens of myth, seeing them as reflections of early Christian belief rather than historical events.
In response, figures like Charles Hodge at Princeton promoted the grammatical-historical method. This approach sought to recover the original meaning of the biblical texts through careful attention to language, grammar, and historical context—without abandoning a belief in divine inspiration.
The rise of theological liberalism and higher criticism provoked a backlash in the early 20th century. The Fundamentalist movement emerged to reaffirm core Christian doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, and Christ’s resurrection. The movement was bolstered by the publication of The Fundamentals (1910–1915), a series of essays funded by oil magnates Milton and Lyman Stewart.
The 1925 Scopes Trial in Tennessee became a public flashpoint over biblical literalism and evolution. Historian George Marsden later defined fundamentalism as “militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.” Fundamentalism was shaped not only by reaction to liberal theology but also by Enlightenment rationalism, the Baconian scientific method, and the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism.
Some fundamentalists adopted dispensationalism, a framework that divides biblical history into distinct eras or “dispensations.” First formulated by John Nelson Darby and popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), this system emphasizes a literal reading of prophecy, a pre-tribulation rapture, and a restored Israel in the end times.
Conclusion: Continuity and Fragmentation
From midrash to typology, from Origen to modern critics, biblical interpretation has undergone continuous development. Christianity inherited from Judaism a reverence for layered meaning and the need for interpretation. The early Church emphasized that Scripture, though inspired, required spiritual and apostolic guidance for proper understanding.
Modern approaches have enriched biblical studies with linguistic, archaeological, and historical insights, but they have also led to fragmentation and relativism, particularly when detached from ecclesial tradition. Scripture warns against distorted interpretation and affirms the need for interpretive authority, as seen in the early Christian reliance on Christ, the apostles, and the Church.
Ultimately, the challenge of biblical exegesis remains a balance between the Spirit and the letter, tradition and innovation, historical meaning and spiritual significance. For Christians today, understanding the history of interpretation is not merely academic—it is a guide for faithfully reading the Word of God.
Bible Verses:
1.2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NRSVCE):
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”
2 Peter 1:20-21 (NRSVCE):
“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
James 3:1 (NRSVCE):
“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”
2 Timothy 2:15 (NRSVCE):
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.”
Church Father Quotes:
Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155 A.D.)
“Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist, whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us, therefore, forsake the foolishness and false teachings of the crowd and return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning.” – Letter to the Philippians 7:1. (Written 135 A.D.)
Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.)
“When, however, they [heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority… It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” – Against Heresies 3.4.1
“By no other means do we learn the truth than by those through whom the Gospel has come to us. They first preached it, and then, by the will of God, handed it down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” — Against Heresies (Latin: Adversus Haereses), Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1
Origen of Alexandria (184-253 A.D.)
“The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written. For what man of intelligence will believe that the first and second day, and the evening and the morning, existed without the sun, moon, and stars?”-De Principiis 4.9
“Who would be so foolish as to suppose that the first, second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, moon, and stars?… I believe that every man must hold that these things indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.” — On First Principles (Latin: De Principiis), Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 1
“Moreover, it is of ecclesiastical teaching that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God, and that they have not only that meaning which is quite apparent, but also another which escapes most. For the words which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. In this matter the opinion of the whole Church is one: that the whole Law is indeed spiritual; the spiritual meaning which the Law conveys, however, is not known to all, but only to those on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge.” –Fundamental Doctrines 1:Preface:8 (Written 220 A.D.)
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by eating the fruit? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and now literally” – Fundamental Doctrines 4:16 (c. A.D. 225)
“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’ it did not say
‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because before the world existed there was not yet time. But time begins to exist with the following days.” –Homilies on Genesis I (c. A.D. 242)
Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 A.D.)
“There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar, or for there to be a new priesthood, besides that one altar and that one priesthood.” –The Unity of the Catholic Church 6
Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373 A.D.)
“But what is most necessary and profitable for the hearers is to listen to the Scriptures explained and expounded by the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church.” – Festal Letter 2 (327 AD)
“The Scriptures were spoken and written by God through men who spoke of God. They must therefore be read not just as other books are read, but as inspired by God and understood in accordance with the spirit in which they were written.”— Festal Letter 39 (A.D. 367)
Alexander of Lycopolis (written ca. 300 A.D.)
For their hypotheses do not proceed by any legitimate method, so that one might institute an examination in accordance with these; neither are there any principles of demonstrations, so that we may see what follows on these; but theirs is the rare discovery of those who are simply said to philosophize. These men, taking to themselves the Old and New Scriptures, though they lay it down that these are divinely inspired, draw their own opinions from thence; and then only think they are refuted, when it happens that anything not in accordance with these is said or done by them.” –Of the Manicheans, Chapter 5 (Written ca 300 A.D.)
Hilary of Poitiers (310-367 A.D.)
“The method of our salvation is founded upon the authority of the Church, not on the private interpretation of Scriptures.” –Commentary on Matthew 23.3
Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.)
“Let no man divide the Sacred Scriptures after his own fancy. It must be interpreted according to the tradition of the Church, not by one’s own judgment.” –On the Holy Spirit 27.66
John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.)
“Let us not interpret the Scriptures by our private judgment, but let us listen to the holy fathers, the doctors of the Church, and follow their interpretations.” –Homilies on Second Thessalonians 3.4
“To get the full flavor of an herb, it must be pressed between the fingers, so it is the same with the Scriptures; the more familiar they become, the more they reveal their hidden treasures and yield their indescribable riches.” — Homilies on Colossians, Homily 3
Jerome of Stridon (347-420 A.D.)
“Do you expect me to teach what the apostles taught? You expect something that is possible and cannot be refused. The meaning of the Holy Scriptures is open to no one who has not experienced them.” –Letter 53 to Paulinus
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.)
“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.” –On Christian Doctrine 2.6
“If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”— Letters, Letter 82, to St. Jerome
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is unveiled in the New.”— Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Book 2, Preface
“For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification… those who clung obstinately to such signs could not endure our Lord’s neglect of them when the time for their revelation had come; and hence their leaders brought it as a charge against Him that He healed on the Sabbath, and the people, clinging to these signs as if they were realities, could not believe that one who refused to observe them in the way the Jews did was God, or came from God. But those who did believe, from among whom the first Church at Jerusalem was formed, showed clearly how great an advantage it had been to be so guided by the schoolmaster that signs, which had been for a season imposed on the obedient, fixed the thoughts of those who observed them on the worship of the One God who made heaven and earth.” –On Christian Doctrine Book III: 5:9-6:10
“We must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor.” –On Christian Doctrine Book III: 10:14
“Those things, again, whether only sayings or whether actual deeds, which appear to the inexperienced to be sinful, and which are ascribed to God, or to men whose holiness is put before us as an example, are wholly figurative, and the hidden kernel of meaning they contain is to be picked out as food for the nourishment of charity.” –On Christian Doctrine Book III: 12:18
“But these writings of the apostles, though clear, are yet profound, and are so written that one who is not content with a superficial acquaintance, but desires to know them thoroughly, must not only read and hear them, but must have an expositor. Let us, then, study these various modes of speech as they are exemplified in the writings of men who, by reading the Scriptures, have attained to the knowledge of divine and saving truth, and have ministered it to the Church.” –On Christian Doctrine Book IV: 21:45
“Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. . . For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one.” –On Christian Doctrine Book I: 36:41-37
There is knowledge to be had, after all, about the earth, about the sky, about the other elements of this world, about the movement and revolutions or the magnitude and distances of constellations, about the predictable eclipses of moon and sun, about the cycles of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones, and everything else of this kind. And it frequently happens that even non Christians have knowledge of this sort that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments. Now it is quite disgraceful and disastrous, something to be on one’s guard against at all costs, that they should ever hear Christians spouting what they claim our Christian literature has to say on these topics, and talking such nonsense that they can scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark. And what is so vexing is not that misguided people should be laughed at, as that our authors should be assumed by outsiders to have held such views and, to the great detriment of those about whose salvation we are concerned, should be written off and consigned to the wastepaper basket as so many ignoramuses. . . . It is in order to take account of this state of things that I have, to the best of my ability, drawn out and presented a great variety of possible meanings to the words of the book of Genesis that have been darkly expressed in order to put us through our paces. I have avoided affirming anything hastily in a way that would rule out any better alternative explanation, leaving everyone free to choose whichever they can grasp most readily in their turn” –Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20 (c. A.D. 408)
“But because the trustworthiness of the Scriptures is in question, this, as I have reminded readers more than once, has to be defended from those who do not understand the style of the divine utterances, and who assume when they find anything on these matters in our books, or hear them read out from them, that seems to be contrary to explanations they have worked out, that thus they should not place any confidence in the Scriptures when they warn or tell them about other useful things. It must be stated that our authors knew about the shape of the sky whatever may be the truth of the matter. But the Spirit of God who was speaking through them did not wish to teach people about things that would contribute nothing to their salvation.” –Literal Interpretation of Genesis., 2:9
“So for the sake of argument, let us suppose that these seven days (which we experience in a modern week), which in their stead (in the stead of the days of creation) constitute the week that whirls times and seasons along by its constant recurrence, in which one day is the whole circuit of the sun from sunrise to sunrise – that these seven [modern days] represent those first seven [days of creation] in some fashion, though we must be in no doubt that they are not at all like them, but very, very dissimilar.” –Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4:27
“One could readily jump to the conclusion, after all, that a day of bodily light was meant, which goes round and round to provide us with the alternations of daytime and nighttime. But then we recall the order in which things were fashioned, and find that all the greenery of the field was created on the third day, before the sun was made on the fourth day, the sun that regulates by its presence this normal day we are used to. So when we hear the word, “When the day was made, God made heaven and earth and all the greenery of the field,” we are being admonished to turn our thoughts to that special day we should be striving to track down with our minds, which. is certainly not such as the one we are familiar with here.” –Literal Interpretation of Genesis., 5:2
John Cassian (360-435 A.D.)
“Why then, you heretic, did you not in this way quote the whole and entire passage which you had read? . . . Why then, you heretic, did you not in this way quote what you had read in the Apostle, entire and unmutilated? But you insert part, and omit part; and garble the words of truth in order that you may be able to build up your false notions by your wicked act. I see who was your master. We must believe that you had his instruction, whose example you are following. For so the devil in the gospel when tempting the Lord said: If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down. For it is written that He shall give His angels charge concerning You to keep You in all Your ways. Luke 4:9-10 And when he had said this, he left out the context and what belongs to it.” -On the Incarnation of Christ Book VII: Chapter 16 (Written in 429 A.D.)
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 A.D.)
“Those who repudiate the history recounted in the divinely inspired Scriptures as outmoded preclude the possibility of gaining a right understanding, according to the sense intended of what is written in them. For the spiritual viewpoint is good and useful; and by bringing better light to the eyes of the mind, it perfects the understanding. When some historical deed is introduced to us in the Sacred Writings, then it is seemly to seek out the usefulness of that history, so that on all sides the divinely inspired Scripture is seen to benefit and assist us.” -Commentary on Isaiah 1:4 (Written ante 429 A.D.)
Vincent of Lérins (Died 445 A.D.)
“Therefore, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all… We must take great care to interpret the Scriptures according to the Church’s authority and not our own private opinions.” –Commonitorium, Chapter 2, Sections 5–6
2
Non-Catholic Quotes:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), Father of the Protestant Reformation & Founder of Lutheranism
“We are obliged to yield many things to the papists (i.e. Catholics)—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” -Commentary on St. John (Chapter 16).
Alister E. McGrath, Calvinist Historian
“Luther and Zwingli were unable to agree on the meaning of such phrases as “this is my body” (which Luther interpreted literally and Zwingli metaphorically) and “at the right hand of God” (which—with apparent inconsistency on both sides—Luther interpreted metaphorically and Zwingli literally). The exegetical optimism of the early Reformation may be regarded as foundering on this rock: Scripture, it seemed, was far from easy to interpret.” –Reformation Thought: An Introduction. Fourth Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012
Brooke Foss Wescott, Bishop of Durham
“In order to appreciate the apostolic age in its essential character, it is necessary to dismiss not only the ideas which are drawn from a collected New Testament, but those also, in a great measure, which spring from the several groups of writings of which it is composed. The first work of the Apostles, and that out of which all their other functions grew, was to deliver in living words a personal testimony to the cardinal facts of the gospel- the ministry, the death, and the Resurrection of the Lord. It was only in the course of time, and under the influence of external circumstances, that they committed their testimony, or any part of it, to writing. Their peculiar duty was to preach.” -The Bible in the Church (1864) pg. 53.
“The Apostles, when they speak, claim to speak with divine authority, but they nowhere profess to give in writing a system of Christian doctrine. Gospels and epistles, with the exception perhaps of the writings of John, were called out by special circumstances. There is no trace of any designed connection between the separate books, except in the case of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, still less of any outward unity or completeness in the entire collection. On the contrary, it is not unlikely that some of the epistles of Paul have been lost, and any completeness is due not to any conscious cooperation of the authors, but to the will of Him by whose power they wrote and wrought.” –The Bible in the Church (1864).
Thomas Cranmer, Protestant Reformer & ArchBishop of Canterbury
“The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof their remaineth yet divers copies found in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. When this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.”. -“Preface to The Great Bible of 1539