Medieval Hermeneutics & The Great Books
The Fourfold Interpretive Method
During the Middle Ages it became standard practice to interpret the Christian Scriptures in more than one sense. Though this approach sometimes lent itself to some pretty fanciful interpretations and, in some cases, even some pretty atrocious and disastrous interpretations, nevertheless the approach itself can yield much good if properly handled. That some men mishandled the Scriptures under the use of the four-fold interpretive method is not much of a reason to oppose the methodology itself. Plenty of men have mishandled God’s word (and other texts) without ever even hearing of this approach to the Scripture. Rest assured, wherever there are human interpreters of Scripture, or any other text, there is room for error.
Nevertheless, opportunity for error in interpretation of a text can be significantly mitigated if one follows some basic rules.
First, an interpreter should approach a text with sincerity and humility. In other words, an interpreter should come to the text seeking to understand what its author intended to communicate. One should not come to a text seeking to impose his own thoughts upon the reading but, rather, he should come to the text with a sincere desire to understand its message before all else. A text’s meaning belongs to the author, not the reader.
Second, an interpreter should approach a text with good will. In other words, an interpreter should be charitable and try to understand the text in a positive light. Where language is difficult, seems confusing, or where there seems to be claims and ideas in contradiction with one another, the interpreter should be patient, assume that understanding and clarity may come as more information is received over time, and he should attempt to find harmonization rather than assume contradiction where possible.
Third, an interpreter should consider information in its appropriate context. A single statement, paragraph, chapter, or (in some cases) even a single book in an author’s canon may be misunderstood if it is taken without reference to its immediate surroundings or the larger body of the author’s work. Reading a text in light of its larger context, both as it relates to a particular passage and its placement in the larger text, as well as the time period and audience being addressed, is a very important part of making sure you are taking away the intended meaning of the author.
The above “ground rules” for hermeneutics (i.e. the science of interpreting a text) aren’t the whole story when it comes to interpreting a text, but if they were honored by all who come to a text we would find a lot less egregious errors and certainly it would wipe out insidious and intentional misinterpretations. Taking these three rules seriously allows anyone to be well on their way to understanding a text in its most basic meaning, that is to say its literal meaning.
As I said above, the medieval Christians took to interpreting the Bible in a four-fold manner. The four ways were literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.
Literal: The plain or natural meaning of a text (i.e. its face-value meaning).
Allegorical: The symbolic and/or metaphorical meaning of a text.
Moral: The way in which the text tells us something about how we should live.
Anagogical: The spiritual significance of the text.
Let’s take a piece of Scripture and consider the fourfold interpretation in light of it. For the sake of example we will use Luke 16:19-31 wherein Jesus relays the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus.
19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Literal interpretation: Lazarus was carried off to Abraham’s side (Paradise) because, although he was poor in worldly means he was a person rich of faith in God. The Rich man, though wealthy in worldly means, was poor of faith in God. Though many assume the wealthy are blessed by God, because they are wealthy, this passage shows us that it is a faulty assumption to believe that just because a person is poor or wealthy that you can safely assume their position before God. Further, Jesus makes the point that the Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient to provide men with all they need to know to love and obey God and that no amount of miracles is sufficient to change an unbeliever into a believer if they won’t listen to the voice of God in his holy word.
Allegorical interpretation: The rich man in this story is the Pharisees and people like them. They have positions of prominence in society, they have fine clothes and food and are honored by all men, but they don’t really know the God they talk about. Contrariwise, Lazarus is the poor believers in Jesus’ day (and our own) who were poor and destitute but who trusted the Lord and belonged to him. Many of the Pharisees saw Jesus risen from the dead but still rejected him as Lord, but those who loved God’s word, and believed the prophets, saw Jesus and knew him to be the Messiah long before his crucifixion and resurrection.
Moral interpretation: We should not presume that because we are materially blessed that we are therefore in God’s favor, nor should we assume the opposite is true. To be poor or wealthy in this world neither indicates righteousness nor a life of sin. If we want to have an indicator of our spiritual status before God, then, we must not look to material matters at all, but we must look to God’s word and whether we are believing what God says. Ultimately we must place all of our hope upon Jesus, of whom the Scriptures foretold and now bear witness to that God raised from the dead. It is in Christ alone that we can have assurance of pardon from our sins and be truly wealthy in the only way that matters. Read your Bible, believe what it says, and act accordingly.
Anagogical interpretation: Very often material things are actually spiritual traps in this world. Few can handle great material wealth and maintain true spiritual wealth. Too often we begin to rely on material things for our safety and security instead of God. The spiritual life is the life free from attachments to this world, that which gives back to God all that he has given us and keeps a very loose grasp on all that the world considers good so that we might not find ourselves in a position where things are grasping us rather than we grasping things. The human heart is a factory for making idols and we should be quick to let go of anything which begins to replace God in our affections, be it property or even relationships. It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, so we must always be mindful that the life of faith is the life that holds nothing so dear as following Jesus Christ. Let cars and houses, job promotions, seats of honor, arms, legs, and eyes, be cast into hell, but not our immortal souls. Cling to Jesus, not to things.
I am no expert at the four-fold method, but hopefully this is sufficient to give a person the basic idea. What is critical in the process, I would argue, and which helps to keep this approach grounded and on track (beyond the three ground rules above) is that every form of interpretation should be in contact with the literal. The literal interpretation is the ground for the other three. One can test any of the other three interpretations fidelity to the text by asking, “Can I see how this connects with the literal interpretation?” and “Is this in substantial agreement with the message of the literal interpretation?” If an allegorical, moral, or anagogical interpretation seems completely foreign or contrary to the literal interpretation then it probably needs thrown out altogether.
One further clarification may be worth adding here. By “literal” interpretation it is not meant that every text must be taken to hold no figures of speech or that the genre of literature should be ignored. The Psalmist’s statement, “He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler” does not literally mean God has wings, for “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,” but it literally means that God will protect his people as a mother bird protects her young. So, understand that “literal interpretation” does not mean woodenly literal without room for figurative language or poetical expressions of truth.
I would argue that this method of interpretation, carefully done, offers a lot of value to the Christian interpreter. I would also argue that it may legitimately be done on texts other than Scripture and to great benefit. Let me offer a brief example from The Odyssey. I hope you are familiar with this story, for it is part of the cornerstone of literature in the Western world, but in case you are not, just know that spoiler alerts lie ahead. Also, you should read this book asap.
The Odyssey
Summary: The Odyssey begins after the end of the Trojan War (a part of which is recorded in Homer’s Iliad) and we find Odysseus in captivity, held by the goddess Calypso, on an island longing to go home. The war lasted about ten years and it will be another ten before Odysseus ever arrives home on the shores of Ithaca after many losses of friends and after facing manifold dangers and difficulties. Meanwhile, Penelope (Odysseus’ wife) has been waiting for twenty years for her husband to return. She is extremely beautiful and many suitors have come to claim her for themselves and desire to sit on Odysseus’ throne. She cleverly puts the men off for a long time, but the suitors are devouring (quite literally) the wealth of Odysseus’ house. In addition, Odysseus’ son Telemachus is coming of age to be a man, but he doesn’t know what that really looks like since his father has been gone all his young life. Athena, under the guise of a man named Mentor, begins to teach Telemachus to man up and be like his father. Odysseus never gives up trying to get home, though he is unfaithful to his wife with more than one woman, and eventually reaches the shores of Ithaca. Upon which time he enters his home disguised as an old man and when the time is right he unites with his son and together they slay all the wicked suitors and reestablish the house of Odysseus, King of Ithaca.
Literal interpretation: Homer tells a story that is layered with purpose upon purpose. He is at once commenting upon the gods and their disputes. Poseidon, enraged by the death of his cyclops son, Polyphemus, at the hands of Odysseus is intent on keeping him from arriving at home, but Athena secretly opposes Poseidon and helps Odysseus and his son Telemachus. Homer, thereby, tells the readers that gods are by no means of one mind and that life is difficult for this reason. Any given action may please one god while infuriating another. Additionally, Homer is teaching us that success in life is largely dependent upon divine aid. We see this both in Odysseus’ arrival at home by Athena’s aid and also in the way Athena guides Telemachus as Mentor. Virtue is, according to Homer, imparted by young men seeing examples of virtuous deeds, having the chance to practice virtue, and by divine intervention. Again, Homer is also communicating the simple fact that whenever great men are absent from their post it creates a vacuum and it is often sought to be filled by lesser men. In light of this, it is critical that we train the next generation to be men of virtue that can fill the void when their seniors vacate roles of leadership (for whatever reason).
Allegorical interpretation: Odysseus is “the younger brother” and Telemachus is the “older brother” in Jesus’ parable of the “Prodigal Son.” Both men are true sons of their father Ithaca. Odysseus goes far away from home on what turns out to be a fruitless and costly journey where he experiences many moral failings with disastrous effects. Telemachus stays at home but he has no idea what it looks like to be a faithful son of Ithaca and has to endure a hard lesson to come to see his place rightly. In the end both are called by their father (Ithaca) to be received as true sons and when they turn to pursue that calling they are received with great joy by all the citizens of Ithaca (by all the angels in heaven).
Moral interpretation: It is important that young men be taught to be good and strong (virtuous) so that they may step up into the roles of former good and strong men thereby keeping weak and ill-moraled men from gaining sway over the people. Whoever finds a faithful wife like Penelope finds a good thing. Odysseus’ perseverance and commitment to getting home, no matter the difficulty is admirable, though his own lack of fidelity to his wife is deplorable. We ought therefore to praise Penelope over Odysseus as it concerns being an example of marital fidelity. We should also look to Mentor/Athena’s example as a reminder that we should fill the gap in being an example to young people in need of direction when their situation leaves them devoid of anyone to show them the way. Finally, we should understand that putting things to right in a nation full of usurpers and faithless men may require strong action in the end and justice is often purchased at a grave cost.
Anagogical interpretation: In the story of The Odyssey we see a kind of inversion of the biblical story. In Homer’s epic we see a faithful wife (Penelope) remaining at home and keeping herself pure and faithful for her husband while he is away for a long time. Odysseus, on the other hand, despite his earnest desire to return home, commits adultery numerous times. When Odysseus returns home Penelope welcomes him back into the home, forgives his infidelity and presents him with the home she has done her best to guard for him. The biblical story, on the other hand, tells the opposite story. Christ is the faithful bridegroom, pure and spotless, and he has gone away to prepare a place for his bride (the church). The church, however, has been serially unfaithful to the Lord and is often caught wandering away from the fidelity that our relationship to him demands. Even so, Christ promises to receive his bride and present her pure and undefiled, through forgiveness of sin and the righteousness of Christ, to his Father. Despite our often wayward wanderings, those who earnestly long for our home with Christ and never stop pursuing it, despite our struggle with wandering hearts, will find it in the end and our failures will be forgotten and we will be established to rule and reign with Christ.
More interpretations could be offered in any of the above four categories. It’s not sufficient to offer only one paragraph of interpretive analysis for the “literal interpretation” of the whole book of The Odyssey. Other moral lessons could also be drawn than the ones I mentioned. Other allegorical interpretations could be suggested (one doesn’t have to use the Bible to draw an allegorical interpretation). Anagogically a person could have focused on something like the perseverance of the saints as we seek our heavenly home and not focused on the bride and bridegroom notion, etc.
There are a lot of different directions a person could go when offering Christian interpretations of a Great Book, but they must always start with fidelity to the text, understanding what it actually says, and approaching what the author was trying to communicate. Of course Homer had no notion of the Christian moral framework, nor the story of the Prodigal Son, nor the idea of Christ and the church as the Bridegroom and bride. These interpretations are not meant to foist meaning upon Homer or upon his text, rather, these are acknowledgments that he offers us a great story which gives us a springboard for thinking Christianly about literature. The steps beyond the literal interpretation do not assume that the author was trying to say these things, necessarily, but it’s a way of reading a text in a redemptive manner.
Many of the Great Books are just waiting to be redeemed in this way. They should be honored first for what they are, and what they were intended to be. We respect them by taking them seriously and trying to understand the message their authors meant to communicate. We redeem them by taking them before the Lord and saying, “what else might we see in this story?” Operating from the assumption that the world can’t get away from the one true story about God and his plans to redeem all things and reconcile the world to himself, we can take up and read Homer, Plato, Virgil, Gilgamesh, Egyptian Mythology, etc., and see that their stories point to more than they intended (though certainly not less).
This article was originally published on Study the Great Books. It is republished here with permission.
