Although an argument may be made that all spiritual meaning should be excluded from biblical interpretation in favor of a literal meaning, I do not. Accordingly, the following post presupposes the validity of spiritual interpretation, and I will yield arguments to the contrary to my classmates. Regarding balancing the literal and spiritual meaning, I believe that Keith Stanglin does a masterful job providing guidelines for a healthy balance between the letter and the spirit using modern interpretive methods. However, a brief summary of the risks of both the spirit and letter may assist.
The risk of a spiritual interpretation is speculation. The risk of the literal interpretation is the uncertainty of one meaning, and the exclusion of faith from the interpretive process. Accordingly, Stanglin suggests a balance between the spirit and the letter by applying certain principles to each category. The spiritual meaning must (1) be tied to the literal sense, (2) utilize intertextuality, and (3) align with the Apostle’s faith, all of which assume a unity of Scripture.[1] The literal meaning must acknowledge (1) that it is only the first step in the interpretive process providing the foundation for a spiritual interpretation, (2) that the diverse nature of Scripture lives within a greater unity, and (3) that a literal interpretation is often as speculative as a spiritual interpretation.[2]
Stanglin’s engagement with the spirit and the letter is strong, but as I was reading the final chapters of his book another question continued to come to mind. Stanglin states, “Spiritual interpretation is…not merely an added application.”[3] If spiritual interpretation and spiritual application are distinct, then what exactly is the difference? I do not believe that Stanglin sufficiently addresses the distinction. Accordingly, the goal of the remainder of the post is to not only provide a couple examples of healthy balance between spirit and letter, but also highlight the distinction between spiritual meaning and spiritual application via two popular passages.
The first example is one that Stanglin mentions. Matthew 6:11 states, “Give us this day our daily bread.”[4] The exegetical challenge resides in the words daily and bread. Stanglin suggests that daily could mean every day, essential, or even supernatural, while bread could mean physical bread, or standing alongside tradition, mean some type of spiritual food or sustenance that expects transformation.[5] What exactly was the author’s intent? It is difficult to know. It is not unreasonable to assume that a literal meaning could pertain to food. It is also not unreasonable to assume that the passage also pertains to something beyond food, for spiritual and emotional sustenance, peace, joy, and love – a spiritual meaning. Assuming a literal meaning and a spiritual meaning coexist, then what is the application? I believe spiritual meaning and spiritual application are often conflated and confused. Some might say that the spiritual application of Matthew 6:11 is that God will sustain you spiritually and emotionally. Although this sounds like application it is not application at all, it is a spiritual meaning or principle that is begging to be applied. However, if the recipient ponders the literal and spiritual meaning and finds peace during an evening where he had just learned that his job was terminated, spiritual application exists. In sum, spiritual interpretation expects transformation, and spiritual application effectuates transformation.
A final example comes from the famous story of Abraham and Isaac. I believe that the partnership between the literal sense, spiritual sense, and its application shines in the Old Testament narratives. Due to the popularity of the story, I will only provide a reference to two verses: “But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me’” (Gen 22:11-12). The literal meaning is that there was a man named Abraham that went to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and then an Angel of the Lord stopped him. The tendency would be to teach the story and then communicate the spiritual principles of faith and obedience. The question is whether the spiritual principles would be considered interpretation or application. Many would consider the spiritual principles application. However, the spiritual principles or interpretation only expect transformation. It is not until the recipient applies the spiritual meaning to a specific real-life situation that it become spiritual application, which effectuates transformation. The literal meaning must lead to spiritual meaning that results in spiritual application for transformation to occur – a missing link in congregations across the nation.
___________________________________________
[1] Keith D. Stanglin, The Letter and Spirit of Biblical Interpretation: From the Early Church to Modern Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 205–7.
[2] Ibid., 207–10.
[3] Ibid., 217.
[4] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
[5] Stanglin, The Letter and Spirit, 237–38.
Bibliography
- Stanglin, Keith D. The Letter and Spirit of Biblical Interpretation: From the Early Church to Modern Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.