It has been asserted that the first Protestant school of interpretation commenced at Antioch of Syria, and had it

not been crushed by orthodoxy for its supposed heretical connection with the Nestorians, the course of church

history might have been very different. It produced such prominent names as Lucian, Dorotheus, Diodorus,

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Chrysostom. This school fought the allegorists and maintained the importance of the

literal and historical interpretation of the Word of God. They insisted on the reality of Old Testament events, and

accused the allegorists of doing away with the historicity of much of the Old Testament, and leaving behind a

shadowy world of symbols. Their approach to the Bible was Christological, and they rightly blended together the

historic and Messianic elements of the Scriptures. The result was that they produced some of the finest expository

literature of ancient times. R. W. Grant points out that this school had a great influence in the Middle Ages and

became the pillar of the Reformation and their method the principal exegetical method of the Christian Church.

Another interesting school was that of the Victorines which came into being at the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris in

the medieval period. They likewise stressed the historical and literal approach to the Scriptures. They insisted that

the spiritual sense could not be properly known until the Scriptures had been literally interpreted.

The historical and grammatical approach to the Bible became the foundation of Reformed doctrine. Luther

exalted the Word of God to be the supreme and final authority on theological matters. He insisted that it cannot be

countermanded or subordinated to ecclesiastical authorities, whether of persons or documents. Dean Farrar (in The

History of Interpretation) quotes him as writing `The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith

and Christian theology'. Also `Every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning, and that should not be

abandoned unless faith forces us to it'.

Luther therefore rejected the allegory of the Roman Catholic church which he called `scum and dirt'. He stressed

the importance of the original languages and did a great deal to encourage the revival of Hebrew and Greek studies.

He claimed that the devout and competent Christian can understand the true meaning of the Bible and does not need

official guides to interpretation, like the Roman Catholic church, but that Scripture interprets Scripture. Needless to

say he carefully distinguished between Law and Grace, and this was one of his principal rules of interpretation.

The hermeneutical principles of Calvin were similar to those of Luther. He insisted that the illumination of the

Holy Spirit was the necessary preparation for the understanding of God's Word. Like Luther, he rejected allegory,

and taught that the historical literal approach was the only sound one. He was a man of great ability and erudition

which was exemplified in his Institutes, a work that has been universally acknowledged as one of the greatest

contributions to theology.

Of the post-Reformation period we intend to say little, for space will not permit us to do otherwise. Sufficient to

say that the spirit and rules of the Reformers became the guiding principles of Protestant interpretation. Among

outstanding names we would mention Ernesti and Bengel, whose famous Gnomon is both concise and penetrating.

However, a period of harsh dogmatism developed, concerning which Dean Farrar writes that theologians of this

period `read the Bible by the unnatural glare of theological hatred'. It was a time of heresy hunting, and as a protest

to this, Pietism developed, which stressed the Scriptures from a devotional standpoint as spiritual food. This was

undoubtedly right, as the Bible is a great deal more than a book of correct doctrine. Its aim is to teach life and

experience, and the personal and experimental must ever be in view in Biblical interpretation. At the same time this

must not be exalted above the historical and literal approach. In an effort to find comfort, or some personal

application of Scripture, the literal and therefore primary meaning is often obscured or ignored. All kinds of

distortions have been made in order to prove a devotional point or obtain a spiritual blessing. We all know how easy

it is to take a text from its context and make it mean something that appeals to us. There is the type of believer

whose only interest in the Bible is what be gets out of it for himself and his own comfort. He assumes that the

whole of Scripture is written to him and about him and, frankly, he is not interested in any exposition that deals with

other families of God's redeemed children, e.g. the people of Israel; his aim is self and his own particular

experience. Such an attitude is destructive of all true interpretation of the Word of God and must be rejected. In a

subtle way it keeps this sort of person occupied with himself, instead of being occupied with Christ and God's great

and glorious redemptive plan centred in Him. Such a narrow view of the Scriptures can only produce a serious