When I was in middle school, literature was one of my absolute least favorite subjects. I was forced to read two books: Animal Farm (by George Orwell) and Sing to the Dawn (by Minfong Ho). While I was not opposed to reading, the idea of “reading between the lines” felt abstract, arcane and equivalent to a witch hunt in my underdeveloped brain. If you’ve seen a meme on the Internet about blue curtains and English teachers, you’ll know what I mean.

But that was over a decade ago. As a grown-up, my prefrontal cortex has developed since, and now I can read far more extensively and appreciate a good piece of literature (or any other form of artistic expression). My favorite types of stories to consume today include manga and anime with rich storytelling (Sousou no Frieren is my current obsession at the moment), but also stories set in fantasy settings with highly detailed systems of magic, power and societal structures (e.g. the Mistborn series, the Pendragon series, and the Summoner Trilogy).

Of course, ever since accepting Christ into my life, one of the books that entered my reading catalogue is the Bible. The Bible is history’s best-seller of all time, and even till today, most believers confer a special status to it, reading it in ways that differ remarkedly from other great novels and literature of the past. Even non-believers find great interest and joy diving deep into its various themes. Truly a timeless classic, the Bible is.

What inspired me to write this blog post isn’t just how Christians read the Bible, but how people read and interpret literature in general. Months ago, Joe Foley from the Youtube philosophy channel Unsolicited Advice produced an extensive video talking about the process of interpretation of literature alongside the modern take of “it’s not that deep” (which inspired the literature meme above). I thought the video gave a very succinct outline of the aims we have while making meaning out of the things we read, which includes:

• Evaluating empirical truth (or revealing an enduring truth to the human condition)
• Judging authorial intent
• Using text as a stepping stone to ideas beyond the text

This made me wonder how these aims applied to Bible-reading believers, and if there exists a “best” aim that believers should adhere to.

Biblical hermeneutics

What counts as a credible interpretation of a text?

Hermeneutics is the field concerning the principles that govern the interpretation of literature in general. Within this field, theologians and biblical scholars have come up with a set of principles on interpreting the bible; a subfield known as biblical hermeneutics. The exact principles vary depending on one’s theological leaning and religious tradition, but within the modern Protestant/evangelical movement, these are some of the more commonly cited principles:

1. Historical context is important
2. Authorial intent is important
3. Scripture interprets Scripture, and cannot contradict itself
4. The clear interprets the obscure
5. Conforms to the rule of faith (regula fidei)

I have no qualms with (1) and (2) – both are self-explanatory. However, it is the third point onwards where I think major problems arise. In his Youtube video, Joe Foley elaborates on how people don’t necessarily read simply to decipher authorial intent – many go beyond the text to construct new possibilities and ideas that go far beyond what the authors originally intended. For instance, go into the subreddit of any modern-era media such as a popular manga or a fantasy book, and you will find no shortage of comments analyzing the symbolisms and parallels in how narratives and characters are portrayed (intentional or otherwise). Even authors of their own books have been told their interpretations were wrong. That’s just part and parcel of reading a great story that allows for divergent interpretations.

Do bible readers do the same? All the time. An early church scholar, Origen, was famously known for allegorizing huge parts of Scripture to decipher “eternal spiritual truths” from them. Even in the New Testament, we see Matthew doing the same with verses from Isaiah, even though the original author of First Isaiah never gave any indication that his writings were meant to predict a future messianic figure. In the modern era, Isaiah 53 (the suffering servant) tends to be the most popular subject of this extrapolative process (connecting the servant to Jesus), despite the author literally spelling out the identity of the suffering servant.  

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:14 NRSVUE)

Listen to me, O coastlands; pay attention, you peoples from far away!
The Lord called me before I was born; while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.
He made my mouth like a sharp sword;  in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away.
And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isaiah 49:1-3 NRSVUE)

Going beyond the original intent of biblical authors

It is a personal choice if one chooses to read the bible to explore unchartered territories of thought for personal fulfillment, inspiration or comfort. However, when one seeks to establish his/her own interpretation as the de facto meaning of the text, I think there should be clear, strict principles to distinguish between meaningful and far-fetched interpretation.

Take for example point (3) on how Scripture interprets Scripture while yielding no contradictions. Implicitly assumed in this principle are that i) all the biblical authors across the ages agree with one another by default, and ii) modern interpretations have arrived at the “correct” way to consolidate the various narratives of the Bible into one coherent story with one coherent direction. But is there robust evidence to support these assumptions?

Proponents of biblical inerrancy will often turn to common excuses such as “Scripture is God-breathed, so the bible must tell of one consistent narrative”. However, that argument immediately crumbles if one acknowledges that Scripture did not exist as a single book for most of human civilization, but as individual letters, narratives, and pieces of literature. Not all of them made it into the canon we knew today (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), and even the ones that did differ across denominations (e.g. 1 Enoch, which is still part of the canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox church and quoted in the book of Jude). Modern critical scholars are aware of significant differences in theology across the gospels and attempts to harmonize these differences are, in my opinion, a clear sign that the coherence of Scripture is not something intrinsic to the Bible but must be manufactured.

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly

And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9)

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14-15 NRSVUE)

Turning to point (4), it isn’t immediately obvious what does “clear” and “obscure” mean. For example, consider these two verses:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NRSVUE)

Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18 NRSVUE)

Read very plainly, John 1:1 refers to Jesus as the Word who was also God. Yet, Mark 10:18 shows Jesus explicitly denying that He is God. Which is it? Here, “clear” and “obscure” texts are highly subjective categorizations, and a verse may appear to have an obvious meaning to one but is perceived to be highly complex and ambiguous to another. In this example, believers might be inclined to adhere to the plain reading of John 1:1 while rationalizing the latter to align with traditional church doctrine. A critical scholar may argue otherwise, highlighting the complexity of translating the final clause of John 1:1 in Greek to suggest Jesus is divine in some sense, but not akin to God the Father. Thus, there is no consistent way to apply this hermeneutic principle, for one can argue for any verse to be read plainly or have a hidden, obscure meaning that demands further scrutiny.

Finally, the last hermeneutic principle (5) goes back to early church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, who vehemently advocated that all Scriptural interpretations must “conform to the rule of faith” (regula fidei). In other words, an interpretation is valid only if it conformed to a certain interpretative authority (back in the day, it usually referred to a church body, a council, or a set of doctrines).

However, modern Protestants will shudder at the thought of an interpretative authority other than the Bible. Yet, for the Bible to become the sole central authority to inform one’s interpretative principles requires interpreting it first somehow. This creates an awkward circular chain of logic, where biblical interpretation both governs and is subject to itself.

Both traditions possess its own set of problems when it comes to constraining biblical interpretation via regula fidei. In the Catholic tradition, one’s interpretation cannot defy doctrine even if said doctrine is unfounded in Scripture, leaving no room for course correction. In the Protestant tradition, while asserting the Bible as the sole authority for faith and doctrine sounds may sound appropriately reverent and pious, the principles for interpreting it must first come from somewhere external to avoid circular logic – something most Protestants remain reluctant to concede.

Closing thoughts

Generations of people have read through the Bible, and each have approached it from numerous perspectives, be it devotionally, historically, academically or theologically. Today, there exists no shortage of commentaries interpreting the Bible in thematically diverse ways. That’s what makes the Bible a titan among ancient literacy works – its ability to captivate and inspire the hearts of mankind remains unchallenged till today.

Because the Bible is generally recognized by many believers to hold special status as a holy text, most will concede the need for certain principles to constrain one’s interpretations in order to remain faithful to the text. However, I find most of these biblical hermeneutical principles problematic as they often force one to butcher the text by adhering to modern precognitions of Scripture foreign to the biblical authors. By doing so, we are effectively constructing our own gospel narrative about God, rather than listening to that of the original authors – and likely Jesus Himself.

That is why I feel above all else, only historical context and authorial intent should govern biblical exegesis. It is too easy for the modern believer who is exposed to a foreign time, culture and doctrine to read their own conclusions and ideas into the Bible (eisegesis), rather than let the text speak for itself. Every practicing believer does this to some extent (you can’t escape it!), and it can serve as good exercise in faith and cultivating spiritual practices. Just remember to exercise humility and recognize that the insights from this process will be personal and anachronistic, not universal nor original to the text. When we relinquish that humility, we create our own biblical narrative, such as reading the Trinity in Genesis, or applying Isaiah 53 to Jesus. No one reads Shakespeare into Charles Dickens. Same principle here – don’t read books into other books.

Yet, even knowing both historical context and authorial intent will not produce a single perfectly coherent, non-anachronistic narrative of God. That’s because it just doesn’t exist. We shouldn’t expect anything less from a collection of stories that span over a thousand years of religious history. But that’s what makes reading and studying about God and His journey with humanity so enigmatic, captivating and refreshing till today. Stick to it, keep reading and read widely – just as you would to learn about anything else in life.