From the first, Seventh-day Adventists have stressed the importance of following sound principles of exegesis when interpreting Scripture. They recognize that interpretation is necessary because of the diverse literary forms found in the Bible; because the languages in which it was originally written, the modes of thought and expression, the customs, and the historical setting are unfamiliar to the modern reader; and because human language is at best an imperfect medium for the communication of divine thought.
As to literary forms, the language of Scripture may be in the form of poetry or prose; it may be literal or figurative; it may be historical, prophetic, or apocalyptic. As to language, it is often difficult if not impossible to translate an idea expressed in one language into another without loss or modification of the thought. The customs and modes of thought and expression of people of a foreign culture that ceased to exist many centuries ago are easily susceptible to being misunderstood today. The messages of Scripture were often given with respect to a particular historical situation, which must be known and understood before their original import and their application today can be accurately determined. The fact that human language is at best an imperfect vehicle for conveying divine thought calls for caution, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The early SDA leaders, such as James White and Joseph Bates, who had no formal seminary training, brought a natural strength of intellect, deep earnestness, and diligent effort to their study of the Bible. Despite their lack of formal theological training, they discovered and followed sound principles of exegesis. Their expositions of Scripture have, accordingly, at nearly every significant point stood the test of the years. They stressed that the Scriptures were to be taken literally unless the context made it obvious that a figure of speech was being used by the sacred writer. In this they followed William Miller, who “concluded from his study of the Bible that it should be understood literally unless there is clear proof that figurative language is being employed by the inspired writer. That is, the words of Scripture ought to be understood in their ordinary historical and grammatical sense, even as with secular writing, except in those instances where the writer used figurative language. In thus viewing the Scriptures literally, Miller was simply following the path of conservative theologians from the very beginnings of Protestantism” (F. D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry [1944], p. 32).
Of the literal method of interpretation Ellen G. White wrote (1888): “The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. . . . The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed” ( GC 598, 599).
In general, early SDA s followed the method of Scripture interpretation characteristic of conservative Protestantism, which viewed all Scripture as divinely inspired. To find truth, early SDA s believed it was necessary to compare all relevant Scripture passages. They pointed to Isa. 28:10 , “line upon line; here a little, and there a little,” as authority for using the proof-text method. They were convinced that when correctly understood, the Bible is consistent throughout.
Emphasis was also given to the matter of understanding biblical passages in their context. Mrs. White urged ( Review and Herald 60:1, Oct. 9, 1883): “Make the Bible its own expositor, bringing together all that is said concerning a given subject at different times and under varied circumstances.” The introduction to the book Bible Readings for the Home Circle (1888) called for a careful study of the context in order to determine the meaning of a statement of Holy Writ.
The antithesis of the literal method is the allegorical method, a system of interpretation that arose early in the Christian Era, minimizing the literal sense of Scripture. This method of interpretation seems to have originated with the Greeks, who in the sixth century before Christ invented it to reinterpret the ancient gods and their cruel and immoral actions, as depicted by the poet Homer, in order to save Homer for the more enlightened ethical philosophy of a more sophisticated age.
The Jewish philosopher Philo, of Alexandria ( c. 20 B.C.-after A.D. 40), borrowed the allegorical method from the Greeks and applied it to the OT . He did not deny the literal meaning altogether, but considered it only shadow. He took the figurative or allegorical meaning to be the real substance or meaning of the text. By this process of reinterpreting the OT he harmonized Scripture with his eclectic Greek philosophy. The Christian scholar Origen ( c. A.D. 185– c. 254), also of Alexandria, introduced the allegorical method to Christian hermeneutics, which method dominated interpretation for more than a millennium. Origen found three meanings in Scripture corresponding to the human body, soul, and spirit—literal and moral meanings for the simple-minded, and the more profound allegorical mysteries for the discerning few.
Meanwhile, beginning at least as far back as Theophilus of Antioch at the end of the second century after Christ, a more conservative hermeneutic developed in opposition to Alexandria, emphasizing a literal, historical, and grammatical exegesis. Only with caution in Antioch were OT prophecies and types applied to Christ; allegory was despised. Great names in the “school” of Antioch included Diodorus of Tarsus ( d. A.D. 394), John Chrysostom ( c. 345–407), and above all Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (392–428). The Antiochene hermeneutic did not deny the validity of spiritual meanings but attempted to derive them from the literal meanings. Antiochene principles were not totally lost during the Middle Ages, and came to new life in Luther’s emphasis on the grammatical sense of Scripture and in the literalistic comments of Calvin. Conservative Protestant theology, including that of Seventh-day Adventists, has tended to follow this approach.
See also Daniel, Interpretation of ; Revelation, Interpretation of ; Symbol .