International Reformed Baptist Seminary
Book Review of The Letter and the Spirit of Biblical Interpretation by Keith D. Stanglin
Submitted to Dr. Barcellos
in partial fulfillment of ET 501: Hermeneutics
By
John Carter
August 31, 2024
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018, 274pp.)
Reviewed by John Carter
Introduction
It is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it. That interpretation may be based in a well-balanced approach that takes all variables into account and arrives with certainty at the proper conclusions, or that interpretation could be based on naïve assumptions and ignorant assertions, which will necessarily lead to dysfunctional conclusions. How can a reader know he is making the best interpretive decision along the way? Especially as the interpreter is made aware of difficulties like doctrine, words studies, church tradition, and other hermeneutical hurdles. In Keith Stanglin’s book, The Letter and the Spirit of Biblical Interpretation: From Early Church to Modern Practice, he attempts to provide a framework to bring together the “church’s Scripture” and the “academy’s Bible” by looking at hermeneutical methods throughout church history.
This book is by no means introductory in its content. Rather, Stanglin is already assuming a working knowledge of basic hermeneutical principles, theology, church history, and a host of other theological disciplines. This book is written for the reader who is up to date with these disciplines. The author attempts to weave together a historical survey of interpretive approaches (early exegesis, later exegesis, medieval exegesis, early modern exegesis, and the rise of historical-critical exegesis) with helpful commentary and concludes with an attempt to summarize his methods and apply what has been discussed. Although his book was generally very helpful, his attempt to apply his methods fell short of convincing. To address these observations this review will look at the perceived strengths, perceived weaknesses, and then provide a brief note on who might benefit from this book.
Strengths
The perceived strengths of this book are few, but nevertheless very important. The most significant strength was Stanglin’s demonstration that the “spiritual” method of interpretation, often called “allegorical,” are not historically as opposed as may be taught today. Through his historical survey he shows how even the schools of Antioch and Alexandira often utilized both the spiritual and literal interpretative method. This well-crafted demonstration continues throughout his historical survey. Any modern student of the Bible would do well to understand this relationship between the literal and the spiritual. To demonstrate the relatedness of these interpretive models Stanglin points out that even the ancient world and the early church had a habit of reading literature outside of Scripture in both literal and allegorical terms (75).
Beyond this useful survey Stanglin also helpfully demonstrated how biblical interpretation became divorced from worship, especially in the Medieval era (221). During the rise of the academy there became a sharp division between the lectio (lecture) and the disputatio (disputation) (101-102, 111), this shift set the stage for modern interpretations of the Bible. As Stanglin showed the deadly cause of this division (186), its effects can be seen on many church websites today. For example, many churches eliminate or downplay doctrinal statements on their websites. It is a sobering reality that many churches have little or limited doctrine listed on their websites. In other words, churches have found that rich doctrine and much less cohesive doctrinal statements are not appealing enough to add as an informative element for those looking for a place to worship. Many churches have succumbed to the lie that right doctrine is not needed for right worship.
The last perceived strength listed here is the call for holiness. Stanglin accurately writes, “holiness is key to understanding where the Scripture would lead us” and “if Scripture’s purpose is to point to God, then its ideal interpreters should be those who desire that end” (226). In short, the spiritual qualities of the interpreter cannot be ignored. For all the weaknesses this book may have, Stanglin is consistent in his desire to see the lectio, disputatio, and worship of God reunited with the study of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the perceived weaknesses of the book are too great to overlook.
Weaknesses
The perceived weaknesses are many and therefore greatly inhibit the usefulness of the book. Four major concerns can be easily identified. The first and most detrimental is that Stanglin presents himself as the singular example of excellence. The irony is that after giving a 2,000-year survey of church history, the author still presents himself as the only example of doing it right. He does point out when certain interpreters were on the right track, but by the end, it seems as if no one comes as close as he does to a proper balance. This lack of historical evidence demonstrating of others doing it well not only lacks humility but also sabotages his own effort to point the way. This is extremely ironic, after a careful survey of Church history, his “broad brush strokes” (10) mutes those who have done this balance well. This result diminishing others who have done this well, proving, by his own logic (i.e. look to tradition), that his own methods are out of step with his own criticisms.
The second major weakness is his tipping of the scales. This will be amplified in the third weakness, but it is clear from his chapter on “A Way Forward” he gladly abandons the literal interpretation anytime he is “embarrassed” (234) by the literal meaning. This results in him abandoning the historical view that Moses is the human author of Genesis, or that there is nothing literal about God judging children (234). The author’s preference for allegorical interpretation when things get culturally or academically uncomfortable demonstrates that his appeal to history or Church tradition is circumstantially based on the convenience of the outcome.
The second weakness connects to the third major weakness in his use of interpretative examples. Specifically, in chapter 8, he picks examples with interpretations that reinforce the negative view of the spiritual or allegorical interpretive method. This begins with his distracting diatribe on the problems with the literal interpretation of creation in Genesis 1 (229). Again, his overly broad-brush strokes about creation proves his lack of evenhandedness in the discussion. The early church had two general interpretations about creation. The literal interpretation was, well, literal; six twenty-four-hour days. The allegorical interpretation, however was not of long periods of time, but believed God created everything in an instant. It is disingenuous to imply the early church thought that creation was longer than 6 days. Stanglin’s examples of a “way forward” unintentionally disprove the reliability of his own method. He spent much time arguing for a balanced literal and spiritual interpretation only to quickly jettison any literal interpretation that were problematic. He would have done better to stick with less caustic examples to prove his point. In his humility (210) he went for the most difficult texts only to prove his insincerity in his previous arguments. Indicating he wasn’t concerned about a balanced approach to interpretation as much as he was looking to offer an approach that soothes his postmodern sensibilities.
Lastly, his logical fallacies. Any large work is inevitably going to have a logical fallacy. His appeal to humility and use of equivocation were beyond tolerable. By claiming humility is inherent in his argument, he writes off all dissenters as prideful (210). However, pride nor humility is relevant evidence to prove the arguments he is making. A wrong man can be humble and a correct man can be proud. The other logical fallacy was his equivocation in regards to “author” (215). The book author regularly switches or is unclear about what he means by “original author” or “authorial intent.” This leave the reader asking, “was he speaking of the divine author or the human author?” This of course leads to manipulating his point to his desired conclusion.
Profitable
The perceived strengths and weaknesses the book quickly limits the scope of those who would profit from reading it. As mentioned earlier, this book is clearly written for the advanced student in biblical studies. There is too much assumed by Stanglin for it to be easily consumed by the average Christian. This book would be best for an advanced Bible students, professors, and pastors who have a short reading list. The historical survey is most profitable but the last two chapters would be best skimmed over. In short, this book would be a very dense read for any Christian without any formal training in hermeneutics, exegesis, church history, and theology. Without these studies completed this work is inaccessible to the lay person.
Conclusion
In his concluding chapter, Stanglin writes that there is,“more than can be summed up in a section” or book (219), which is a disappointing statement for a book that was designed to do that very thing. The critical tell for this book is found when he addresses the spiritual and literal use of “daily bread,” in the Lord’s prayer. At an opportunity where he could have easily demonstrated the balanced use of the spirit and letter, he instead shows how skilled he is at solving problems he created. It seems that as long as books of this form continue to be in print the distance between the pulpit and the lectern will continually increase. It is unfortunate that the useful chapters surveying the historical development and progression of spiritual and literal interpretive methods will be clouded by its weakness and limitedness of its accessibility.
Musica Theologica 