ON BIBLICAL APPROACH
During Bible Study, our approach is crucial because it affects how much we can extract from the word and ultimately affects our view of God.
In our world today, two different approaches are available;
- The allegorical approach where the spiritual meaning of the text is pronounced
- The historical approach where the literal meaning is pronounced.
It is worthy of note that the differences in the two approaches are more of emphasis and not of denial. And as a friend of mine would say “emphasis is everything”.
The Allegorical approach aims at seeing Christ and His church from the Bible even in the OT texts while the Historical approach sees the texts are literal events.
The crop of many believers has now been impacted by both with emphasis on one or the other. Hence, the article.
In the 4th century, the two most important centers of Christian learning (Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria) were drawn into decades of theological arguments on which approach deserves prominence. The Alexandria center was a proponent of the Allegorical approach while the Antioch center believed the Historical approach was right.
The Alexandria center’s approach dates back to the time of Origen who used lots of allegorical approaches, howbeit, was also influenced by Greek philosophy. Paul himself used it in Galatians 4:21–31.
However, the weakness of the allegorical method is how easy it is to see what you want to see in Scripture, one can easily go overboard looking for allegories where there are none in a bid to sound deep. Origen was deemed to be a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and some of his works were destroyed. He believed hell is a temporary concept for the purification of sin.
In the literal approach, the historical context is established and the meaning of the texts is extrapolated. People who use this approach often say “the Bible can’t mean today what it didn’t mean decades ago”. They ask “who wrote the letter, to whom was he written, why was it written? Etc”
Truth is, these are valid but a possible weakness is to see little or no symbolism in the texts, no foreshadowing. Theodore of Mopsuestia, a proponent of this approach acknowledged only four psalms as messianic and denied that Isaiah 53 was a prophecy about Christ’s crucifixion.
Conclusively, both are valid approaches. Balance is key. I would advise that Believers should begin with a literal approach. The spiritual meaning should be acknowledged when there is sufficient evidence from the literal method.
Like I used to say, “the Bible is many books; it is a historical book, a scientific book, yet a spiritual book. It is all these and many more. One who would get the truth must approach it holistically.
Bibliography
- Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine.
- 2. William Klein et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.
- 3. Daryl Aaron, 40 Most influential Christians who shaped what we believe today.
- 4. Harold Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church.
Adesoji Fasanya
Lead, Eden House
