1
A Move toward Literal Interpretation in Church History
The following is an excerpt from Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to
Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1991), 42-46.
Rashi (1040–1105) was a Jewish literalist of the Middle Ages, who had a great influence
on Jewish and Christian interpretations by his emphasis on Hebrew grammar and syntax. He
wrote commentaries on all the Old Testament except Job and Chronicles. He stated that “the
literal must stand no matter what that might mean for the traditional.” The title Rashi is
taken from the first letters of his name: Rabbi Shilomo [Solomon] bar [son of] Isaac.
Three writers at the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris followed Rashi in his interest in the
historical and literal sense of the Scriptures. These men—Hugo (1097–1141), Richard (d. 1173),
and Andrew (d. 1175)—were known as the Victorines. Richard and Andrew were pupils of
Hugo. The emphasis of the Victorines on the literal sense of Scripture was a bright light in the
Dark Ages. Andrew disagreed with Jerome who had said that the first part of Jeremiah 1:5 refers
to Jeremiah but that the last part of that verse refers to Paul. Andrew said, “What bearing does
this have on Paul?” Richard, however, did give more attention than the other two to the mystical
meaning of the Bible.
Nicholas of Lyra (1279–1340) is a significant figure in the Middle Ages because he is a
bridge between the darkness of that era and the light of the Reformation. In his commentaries on
the Old Testament he rejected the Vulgate and went back to the Hebrew. But he did not know
Greek. Luther was strongly influenced by Nicholas.
Though Nicholas accepted the fourfold sense of Scripture common in the Middle Ages,
he had little regard for it and stressed the literal. He was strongly influenced in that direction by
Rashi.
John Wycliffe (ca. 1330–1384) was an outstanding Reformer and theologian, who
strongly emphasized the authority of Scripture for doctrine and Christian living. Thus he opposed
the traditional authority of the Catholic Church. He proposed several rules for Bible
interpretation: (a) obtain a reliable text, (b) understand Scripture’s logic, (c) compare parts of
Scripture with each other, (d) maintain a humble, seeking attitude so that the Holy Spirit can
instruct (The Truth of Holy Scripture, 1377, pp. 194–205). Stressing the grammatical, historical
interpretation of Scripture, Wycliffe wrote that “all things necessary in Scripture are contained in
its proper literal and historical senses.” Wycliffe was the first English translator of the Bible. He
has been called “the morning star of the Reformation.”
Martin Luther (1483–1546) wrote, “When I was a monk, I was an expert in allegories. I
allegorized everything. But after lecturing on the Epistles of the Romans I came to have
knowledge of Christ. For therein I saw that Christ is no allegory and I learned to know what
Christ is.”
Luther denounced the allegorical approach to the Scriptures in strong words. “Allegories
are empty speculations and as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.” “Origen’s allegories are not
2
worth so much dirt.” “To allegorize is to juggle the Scripture.” “Allegorizing may degenerate
into a mere monkeygame.” “Allegories are awkward, absurd, inventive, obsolete, loose rags.”
Rejecting the fourfold sense of Scripture, which had been dominant throughout the
Middle Ages, Luther stressed the literal sense (sensus literalis) of the Bible. He wrote that the
Scriptures “are to be retained in their simplest meaning ever possible, and to be understood in
their grammatical and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids” (Luther’s Works, 6:509).
His emphasis on the literal led to his stress on the original languages of the Scriptures. “We shall
not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which the
sword of the Spirit is contained” (Luther’s Works, 4:114–15). And yet the Bible student, Luther
said, must be more than a philologist. He must be illumined by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore the
grammatical, historical approach is not an end in itself; it is to lead us to Christ.
In his “analogia scripturae” (“analogy of faith”) he, like Augustine, said that obscure
passages are to be understood in light of clear passages. “Scripture is its own interpreter,” he
often stated. “This is the true method of interpretation which puts Scripture alongside of
Scripture in a right and proper way” (Luther’s Works, 3:334).
According to Luther, every devout Christian can understand the Bible. “There is not on
earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture” (Exposition of the 37th Psalm). By
this emphasis he was opposing the dependence of the common people on the Roman Catholic
Church.
Though Luther vehemently opposed the allegorizing of Scripture, he too occasionally
allegorized. For instance he stated that Noah’s ark is an allegory of the church.
For Luther, Bible interpretation is to be centered in Christ. Rather than allegorizing the
Old Testament, he saw Christ frequently in the Old Testament, often beyond what is legitimately
provided for in proper interpretation.
Luther’s rejection of the allegorizing approach to Scripture was revolutionary.
Allegorizing had had a stronghold on the church for centuries. Though it developed in an effort
to provide an answer to the Bible’s anthropomorphisms and alleged immoralities, allegorizing
was fraught with problems. Allegorizing becomes arbitrary. It has no objectivity or controls on
one’s imagination. It obscures the true meaning of Scripture. It has no authoritative message, for
one person may say a passage teaches a certain truth allegorically, whereas another may see an
entirely different teaching. It is a way of wresting the Scriptures from having any certain
authority. “The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hand of the exegete.”
Allegorizing could also lead to pride, as some attempt to see in the Scriptures what they think is
a meaning “deeper” in its spiritual, mystic sense from what others see.