Biblical interpretation and the Reformation

prior to the Reformation

Wikipedia — Four senses of Scripture

Martin Luther's views

Britannica — The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics — The Reformation period

Martin Luther (1483–1546) was a voluminous expositor, insisting on the primacy of the literal sense and dismissing allegory as so much rubbish—although he indulged in it himself on occasion. The core of scripture was to him its proclamation of Christ as the one in whom alone lay man’s justification before God.

Concordia University — The 500th Anniversary of the Reformation — Luther and Biblical Interpretation

For centuries, the dominant way of interpreting the Scriptures assigned four separate meanings to each thing in Scripture. For example, when the Bible speaks about Jerusalem, medieval theologians said that it was talking about 1) the city in Israel (literal), 2) the Church (allegorical), 3) the soul (moral), and 4) heaven (eschatological).

Luther identified the shortcomings of this approach, which was too often dependent upon guesswork and the whims of the interpreter. He wrote, “It was very difficult for me to break away from my habitual zeal for allegory. And yet I was aware that allegories were empty speculations and the froth, as it were, of the Holy Scriptures. It is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine” (LW 1.283).

Luther identified that the Scriptures had one sense, the literal or natural sense. This did not mean that he was a complete literalist. For example, he stated that figures of speech are meant to be taken figuratively. However, when the Scriptures speak plainly, they should be taken literally according to the normal use of language. The implication of this approach is that the Bible is clear in its meaning and can be understood by ordinary people.

Blog about The Reception History of the Parables — Martin Luther's move away from allegorical interpretation of Scripture

Interpreters must begin with the plain sense of Scripture and pursue the literal sense as far as one can go, before considering any symbolic meaning. The reference point, though, always has to be centered on Christ, and that focus provides the context for all biblical interpretation (Kissinger 1979: 45).

Luther again reflects on his development of thought concerning exegesis “Now I have shaken off all these follies, and my best art is to deliver the Scripture in the simple sense; therein is life, strength, and doctrine; all other methods are nothing but foolishness, let them shine how they will . . .” (Table Talk CCEL 275).

To illustrate the defects of allegorical interpretation, Luther compares it to the legend of St. George: St. George is Christ, the woman he saved is Christendom, dragon is the devil, the horse is the human nature of Christ, the spear is the gospel message, and so forth. Allegorical interpretation is a “trifling art,” and here Luther does not mince words: “their interpretation is so stupid that it makes one feel like vomiting” (188). Such interpreters “juggle and play” with the texts, and as long as they do not damage the message of Christ, Luther is content to leave such “prophets,” as he sarcastically calls them, alone, but, Luther adds: “But when one examines it under the light and according to the text, it is revealed as pure jugglery. Devoid of foundation or truth, it is the product of his [Karlstadt’s] own fancy, and forced upon the text” (189-90).

(other pages within this blog talking about very similar things)

Trinity International University — Luther’s Allegory of the Three Doves

Contrary to popular misconception, the Reformation did not halt the use of allegorical interpretation.

...

Reformed Journal — Believing the Bible

Martin Luther inherited a high view of scripture from the Medieval church. What Luther opposed, and what sparked the reformation, was placing the authority of the bible under the institutional church. For Luther, it’s the other way around: “The Scripture is the womb from which are born theological truth and the Church”.

...

This helps us better understand Luther’s method of interpretation. Luther is critical of the church’s tendency to allegorize scripture. The church had developed a fourfold method of interpretation, which included the literal – historical, but preferred the allegorical / spiritual. Luther wanted to return to the literal historical as THE interpretation of scripture through which the spiritual message is proclaimed. But this isn’t a hyper literal approach, it’s a way to read the spiritual message of scripture in the plain words.

(I should come back and read this, there's some interesting bits here)

the views of other Reformers

Union Publishing — The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centred

Most, if not all, evangelicals today would certainly affirm that they are laboring with the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation – but do they mean by this term everything that Luther meant by it? In many cases, one would have to assume that they do not; because it is often the case that a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament in particular is supported by means of a 'literal,' grammatical, historical hermeneutic. For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that 'drives home Christ.' As he once expressed it,
'He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the centre.'

To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the centre.