Module 4: Historical Schools- Allegorical Schools Pt. 2

All,

I am putting this week's post up very early because I am heading off to the GCI Pastors retreat. You can begin posting immediately or you can choose to wait till later. The Sun. Mid-Night deadline still applies. This is a continuation from last weeks lecture on the Allegorical Schools. You likely did not have more reading for this week as it was covered last week. However, this might be a good time to get ahead on your reading.


a. Catholic Allegorism / Please keep in mind that these conclusions were/are incorrect.

i. During the Middle Ages, the majority of exegetical work was allegorical in nature.

ii. They called it the “mystical” or the “spiritual” meaning of the Bible.

1. Three divisions of the mystical or spiritual meaning of the Bible.

a. Allegorical - deeper meaning, spiritual interpretation
b. Tropological – moral interpretations
c. Anagogical – escatalogical sense (focus on end times) how the church now anticipates the church glorified in the end times (what is to come; who we are going to be)

iii. Modern Catholic interpretation has been influenced by the Protestant hermeneutic changes, therefore, they no longer dogmatically hold to the Allegorical being the only true method of interpretation. Since the Reformation, the Catholic church has increasingly given ground. (I wonder where they will stand regarding celebacy for priests after the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia among priests.)

iv. Basic hermeneutical views of the Catholic church

1. Catholic scholars accept the Latin Vulgate as the only authentic version for all public expositions. No NIV's here!!!!

2. The catholic interpreter obediently accepts what the church says about matters of biblical introduction and authorship. (Problem: What the church says…goes)

3. The catholic interpreter accepts all verses which the church has officially interpreted.

4. The literal and historical interpretation of scripture is the foundation of study of the Bible. (the natural reading) Side note: This came as a result of the Reformation

5. The scriptures do posses a spiritual or mystical meaning which is beyond the literal.

6. The Catholic church is the official interpreter of scripture.

a. The church is the custodian of scripture, therefore, it has the right to have the official interpretation

b. There is the “original tradition” which is the deposit of faith passed down through the generations (what has passed down from the church fathers in the form of official church interpretations - these have been written down, but don't confuse it with the "written tradition" below.)

c. There is the “written tradition” which is the Bible itself.

d. Because the written tradition is obscure, it needs an official interpreter, thus the authority of the Catholic Church to do so.

i. At the Council of Trent, they decided:

1. The Catholic Church was the official interpreter
2. Individual interpretation is prohibited.

7. The "fathers" are to be the guide in interpretation.

8. Any obscure teaching in the written tradition is to be explained by the fuller teaching in the “original” interpretation. (i.e. if I read something in 2006 and don’t understand it, I need to seek the writings of the early church fathers to seek the true meaning of that particular obscurity.)

Bottom Line for Catholic Hermeneutics: The Catholic Church fathers of the past have interpreted the Bible, therefore, all other interpetations are unacceptable because they (the official interpreters) have already given the interpretation and no more light need be shed on the subject. Are you getting chills? This is scary isn't it?


Introduction to "Intent and Method"

When it comes to observing interpreters of the past and present, it becomes clear that two processes need to be considered. In my studies and attempts to understand others interpretations of scripture, I have found that interpreter/teacher may have good intentions, a good heart, but a faulty hermeneutic. For our purposes here, I won't even mention evil intentions. I think most people are sincere in their approach. They get excited about the revelation that they have received from scripture and they go to work proving that it exists almost everywhere in the Bible.

The other aspect is Method. When you have a faulty method in approaching scripture, you may still support a point that in the end is true, but the hermeneutics are bad. Herein lies the problem. Most people are not just learning what you teach, but how you teach. In other words, your hermeneutic (or method of interpreting scripture) is being passed on to other generations as well as the teaching. Often the original good intent is lost and future generations are left with faulty hermeneutics leading to even more skewed teachings. This is what we are seeing in the Catholic development of hermeneutics. The bad seed was planted from the very beginning.

But what is worse is that future generations are left with a hermeneutic that tends to be legalistic, prophetic, hyper-spiritual, self-focused, so on and so forth. I can give you lots of examples, but it is difficult to do within this writing enviroment. I have observed teachers who are convinced that faith and prosperity are built into almost every teaching in the Bible. This is what I call "macro-eisegetics" - eisegesis on a whole-Bible view. They come to the Bible with a pair of faith glasses and only see faith. They ignor the verses about struggle, and times of lack, or they explain them away. I actually heard a preacher say that if Paul understood the principles of faith, he would not have known lack. Whew!!! You probably have seen this done from other topics as well. Let's discuss this some.

Lecture Question; 250 -300 Word Module Post:
Explain in your own words how Catholic interpretation developed. Also, take a moment to comment on Intent and Method. Where have you seen this?