Interpreting the Bible by J. C. K. von Hofmann
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Interpreting the Bible by J. C. K. von Hofmann[1]
J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810–1877) is rightly considered a giant within the field of biblical theology (BT) for his contributions to the salvation-historical approach to the discipline.[2] And in his book Interpreting the Bible,[3] Hofmann describes what he understood to be the fundamental principles that govern the proper interpretation of Scripture. Given Hofmann’s stature as a biblical theologian and the subject matter of the book, evangelicals would do well to engage critically with Interpreting the Bible.[4]
Hofmann begins by outlining the relationship between general hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics (1–4). In addressing this issue, Hofmann stresses two points. On the one hand, Hofmann argues that the practices and principles of general hermeneutics apply to the interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, Hofmann posits that biblical interpretation will have unique features because it must proceed in a manner that is true to the nature of Scripture. In particular, Hofmann maintains that it is Scripture’s unique function as the bearer of salvation history’s testimony to Christ that provides biblical interpretation with its distinct character.[5] Hofmann then traces the history of Scriptural interpretation from the time of the early church until the modern period. He highlights the different ways in which biblical exegesis deviated from the example of the apostles during the church age. His survey of the history of interpretation leads him to the singular conclusion that “wherever exegetes departed from a method of interpretation based upon the laws of general hermeneutics, it was not because they did not know these laws but because they took a false attitude toward Scripture” (15). Thus, Hofmann posits that biblical interpretation must be based on an accurate assessment of what Scripture actually is. Moreover, the nature of Scripture is made manifest by its contents which are thoroughly historical in orientation (18–19).
Next, Hofmann explores the nature of the unity of the Scriptures under two headings. First, he argues that the Bible “confronts [the interpreter] as a homogeneous whole” because it is “the present possession of Christendom” (23). According to Hofmann, the church’s claim on the Bible results in three presuppositions that govern biblical hermeneutics. First, biblical hermeneutics proceeds from the assumption that Scripture is miraculous. This means that the Bible must be understood as normative for the church and it must be read with confidence in its unity (29–30).[6] In addition, the Bible must be read as a miracle of salvation history that bears witness to God’s miraculous works within salvation history which “revolves around Christ, tends toward Him, starts from Him, and therefore shares the nature of Him who is the absolute miracle” (31). Second, biblical hermeneutics assumes the “Israelitic” character of the Scriptures. Among other things, this means that the New Testament (NT) must be understood in relation to the Old Testament (OT) since the latter “prophetically and figuratively” anticipates the former (56). Finally, biblical hermeneutics presupposes that the Bible’s unity as “the authoritative witness to saving truth” (64). On the one hand, interpreters must recognize the limits of Scripture’s authority.[7] As Hofmann posits, “Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture for us only as the authoritative witness of the things which are apprehended by faith” (64; italics mine).[8] On the other hand, interpreters must exegete and judge all parts of Scripture in light of the Bible’s overall witness to Christ (76–77).[9]
Chapter two sees Hofmann wrestling with the historical issues that impinge upon the unity of the Bible. He tackles three subjects in particular: (1) the original condition of the Scripture, (2) the languages of the Scripture, and (3) the origin and making of the individual books of Scripture. According to Hofmann, biblical passages or books that cannot be integrated into the truth of salvation should be dismissed as non-canonical (89). In addition, Hofmann notes the importance of text criticism for the interpretation of both testaments since the establishment of the original text is a prerequisite for biblical hermeneutics (92–95). Furthermore, according to Hofmann, the exegesis of the Scripture should not be based on any existing translations; instead, the exegete “has to translate the original text according to the rules of the language in which it was written” (95). Finally, Hofmann argues that attention must be given to the circumstances which led to the composition of each biblical text. As he states, “the interpreter has to investigate when and for whom and by whom [the texts] were written, and what were the circumstances and purpose of the writings” (102).
Chapter three explores the relationship between the OT and the NT. Although both the OT and the NT bear witness to the salvation accomplished by Christ, they do not do so in the same way; as such, interpreters cannot approach the two testaments in identical fashion. In particular, because the OT speaks of a salvation that is purely future from its vantage point, it must be read with both historical and spiritual discernment (134).[10] So, on the one hand, OT history must be taken seriously since it is “the history of salvation as proceeding towards its full realization” (135). On the other hand, OT writers “are to be understood as bearing witness to the same salvation which is revealed in the New Testament, yet they do so in their historical situation” (145–46). This means that each OT book attests in its own way to the same saving realities declared in the NT. Thus, the OT as a whole and in its parts is to be read as a witness to God’s saving work which finds its culmination in Christ. And yet, the historical particulars of each OT text must not be ignored and the details of the text must not be treated as allegorical symbols (165–66). Meanwhile, Hofmann contends that the NT must always be viewed in relation to its OT counterpart. Thus, readers must recognize and appreciate the antitypical character of the NT.[11] Additionally, readers must take note of how the NT authors use OT language in order to proclaim God’s saving work in Christ (180). By draping their presentation of Christ’s person and work with concepts drawn from the OT, the apostles demonstrate the organic connection between the two testaments while also showcasing how the NT enriches OT themes. And, in order to properly discern the relationship between “the saving facts” recorded in the OT and their use in the NT, one must pay careful attention to the ways in which NT authors quote OT texts (189).
In the final chapter of Interpreting the Bible, Hofmann discusses Scripture’s testimony to the past, the present, and the future. Beginning with the past, Hofmann asserts that historical narratives in Scripture are more akin to ancient epics than they are to modern works of history (205). So Hofmann says, “[Scripture’s] purpose is not to provide exact knowledge of the external course of events but rather to point out the significance which certain events have for the salvation realized in Christ” (209–10). But in addition to rehearsing God’s saving acts in the past, the biblical authors also bore witness to salvation-historical realities that were present to them. In doing so, each biblical writer highlighted aspects of these realities that accorded with their own particular purposes. As a result, the same concepts are often discussed in distinct ways even by authors who lived within the same period of salvation history (218–19). Thus, when the biblical authors are bearing witness to matters pertaining to salvation, it is vital that we “ascertain the aspect of that experience separately in each passage” and that we “make sure of the perspective from which the experience is described” (223). Finally, Hofmann attends to the ways in which biblical authors address the future. Here, Hofmann notes that the specificity with which the biblical authors speak depends entirely upon what kind of future event is being described. Thus, events taking place “within the present order of the universe” are explained more plainly (223–24), while the biblical authors use more figurative language to refer to events that bring about the transition into the next age (228–30) or that take place within the next age (231–35).
Interpreting the Bible is a thought-provoking book that offers a wealth of insight into the task of BT. Unfortunately, Hofmann also hamstrings his own proposal by adopting a sub-biblical view of Scripture. Hofmann begins on the right foot by observing that our approach to the Bible must be determined by what the Bible actually is. This then leads him to correctly insist upon the applicability of “general hermeneutics” within biblical interpretation while nevertheless advocating for an approach to the Bible that recognizes its unique and unified witness to salvation history. Hofmann correctly describes the Scripture as reflecting both unity and diversity, and he helpfully describes some of the different ways these impact biblical interpretation. Hofmann is clearly aware of the role presuppositions play in the task of biblical interpretation;[12] and yet, this awareness does not lead him to the hermeneutically fatal conclusion that interpreters can do nothing to recover the authorial intentions expressed in a text. He models an approach to Scripture that is both seriously Christological while also being firmly historical; in other words, Hofmann puts forward a hermeneutic that looks for the Bible’s witness to Christ without resorting to arbitrary connections that depart from authorial intent.[13] Hofmann rightly stresses the integral relationship between the OT and the NT, and he provides a host of examples to demonstrate how the OT typologically prefigures various NT realities. In addition, Hofmann highlights the importance of text criticism as a discipline focused on recovering the original wording of the texts, and he stresses the value of reading Scripture in its original languages. In all these ways, Hofmann puts forth an approach to BT that evangelicals should readily embrace.
However, Hofmann also embraces a deficient view of Scripture which inevitably compromises aspects of his overall approach.[14] For starters, Hofmann is wrong to contend that our understanding of the character of Scripture must be based upon some combination of the personal experience of salvation and the church’s confession (27).[15] On the contrary, it is Scripture’s own self-attestation that should determine our understanding of its character.[16] On this point, Hofmann is simply mistaken when he claims that the Bible does not describe its own nature (24).[17] While Hofmann is obviously correct in saying that the Bible does not name the books that belong to the canon (24–25), he is wrong to dismiss the significance of the biblical texts that attest to the concept of a canon (cf. Luke 24:44; 2 Thess 2:2; 3:14; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 3:16). Moreover, he fails to adequately account for passages that suggest that God would guide his church so that they might be able to recognize which words are genuinely His (cf. John 10:16, 27–30; 17:6–8, 17–20; 1 Cor 14:37).[18] In addition, Hofmann inappropriately limits the authority of Scripture to matters of faith as opposed to matters that can be known through “natural knowledge and experience” (64).[19] This limitation of biblical authority is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it represents an external imposition on Scripture since the Bible nowhere claims that its truthfulness or authority extends only to matters having to do with faith and salvation.[20] Second, it is artificial since the gospel message does not compartmentalize matters of faith and matters of “natural knowledge and experience.” On the contrary, the gospel brings both together in its witness to Heilsgeschichte.[21] Finally, Hofmann incorrectly assumes that an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture calls for a naïve and ahistorical approach to the biblical texts.[22] Such a claim is belied by the many evangelical biblical theologians who reject allegorical exegesis, practice text criticism, and appreciate the literary character of the Scriptures.
Hofmann’s mischaracterization of the nature of Scripture leads to the book’s biggest hermeneutical error which is its embrace of Sachkritik (“subject criticism”). According to Hofmann, readers must adjudicate whether or not a passage of Scripture is consistent with saving truth.[23] If a verse is determined to be out of step with the message of salvation, it is to be rejected as non-canonical (76 –77, 89). In effect, Hofmann adopts a canon within the canon and he subjects the Scriptures to the authority of individual interpreters. Such hermeneutical moves cannot be reconciled with the nature of biblical authority and should be rejected by evangelicals.
At the end of the day, Interpreting the Bible is a stimulating but flawed book. Though evangelicals can learn much about BT from Hofmann, they will be (and should be) thoroughly underwhelmed by his description of the nature of Scripture.[24] And, as Hofmann rightly points out (and as his work demonstrates), a deficient view of Scripture inevitably gives rise to errors in one’s approach to hermeneutics and to BT.
Richard M. Blaylock
Western Seminary (August 2025)
TL;DR
In Interpreting the Bible, Hofmann describes the principles that should govern one’s approach to biblical interpretation.
Hofmann posits that one’s approach to reading the Bible must be based upon the nature of the Bible, i.e., what the Bible actually is. His investigation of biblical interpretation throughout church history leads him to conclude that erroneous approaches are always related to mistaken attitudes towards the nature and character of the Bible.
Because the Bible is a product of Holy History that testifies to Holy History, Hofmann rejects allegorical approaches to the Scripture while he champions a historical/theological hermeneutic. Such an approach seeks the Scripture’s theological witness to the truths of salvation while also attending to the Bible’s historical features (ex. textual witnesses, original circumstances, original readership, etc.).
Hofmann argues that both the OT and the NT bear witness to Christ, although they do so in their own ways. Thus, the OT must be read as typologically prefiguring Christ while the NT must be interpreted in light of its antitypical relationship to the OT.
Hofmann limits the authority of Scripture to matters pertaining to faith. In addition, he denies the value of Scripture’s self-attestation and posits that the character of Scripture must be known through the experience of salvation and through the church’s confession.
Hofmann argues that individual interpreters must adjudicate which portions of the Bible are truly canonical; they are to do this by checking whether a passage is consistent with the truths of salvation.
Overall, though he does provide many valid insights regarding hermeneutics and BT, Hofmann’s deficient view of Scripture prevents him from being wholly helpful on these subjects.
[1] J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible, trans. Christian Preus (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959).
[2] For a discussion of Hofmann’s contributions to the salvation-historical approach to New Testament theology, see R. W. Yarbrough, The Salvation-Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology (Deo, 2004), 28–59.
[3] The original German text was entitled Biblische Hermeneutik and was published in 1880. The contents of the book were first given as a series of lectures to students at the University of Erlangen in 1860.
[4] Though he is often described as a crucial figure in the history of BT, some scholars believe Hofmann is often overlooked by English-speaking scholars. See Yarbrough, Salvation-Historical Fallacy, 9; Matthew L. Becker, “Appreciating the Life and Work of Johannes v. Hofmann,” Lutheran Quarterly 17 (2003): 184.
[5] This conclusion follows from the witness of the apostles who, according to Hofmann, “regarded Scripture as the witness borne by Holy History to Christ, who is the goal of that whole historical process” (6).
[6] Hofmann notes the importance of faith in the task of interpretation. So he says, “Doubt will prevent him from correctly understanding what he reads. Doubt clouds, while confidence sharpens our eyes for the incomparable value of Scripture” (30).
[7] Hofmann rejected the notion that the Scripture was inerrant or infallible (see Interpreting the Bible, 64, 70). As Becker rightly observes, Hofmann believed “it was impossible for the Christian scholar simply to turn a blind eye on historical scholarship and take refuge in a traditional scholastic-orthodox doctrine of scriptural inspiration and infallibility.” See Becker, “Life and Work of v. Hofmann,” 182.
[8] Thus, things apprehended by reason, experience, or observation are outside the bounds of Scripture’s authority (65–67).
[9] Hofmann believed that individual passages were to be evaluated in light of their perceived consistency with “the saving truth.” As Hofmann states, “If one should discover passages which did not agree with the saving truth, the canonicity of the portion of Scripture where such ideas were found would have to be called into question” (76–77).
[10] Hofmann describes what he means by “spiritual discernment” when he says, “We mean an interpretation based on the premise that the Old Testament Scripture is the work of the same Holy Spirit who is effectively at work in the New Testament Church.” Thus, Christians can “identif[y] in the Old Testament the same salvation which he personally experiences” (134).
[11] As Hofmann states, “The events of the New Testament are not new as contrasted with the old, which dissolved and vanished as they came to pass, but are rather antitypes which bring a preliminary history to its conclusion and fulfill a prophecy” (169).
[12] Hofmann criticizes modern biblical scholars who claim to provide a purely objective interpretation of Scripture. Hofmann describes such persons as “victims of self-deception” who “boasted that they were guided by no presuppositions whatsoever in their work, in contrast with the type of interpretation which was determined by the common faith of the church and the presupposition that Scripture is the word of God in a unique manner. These men did not realize that they too were dogmatically determined, although by the opposite presupposition” (13–14).
[13] Hofmann bemoaned approaches to the text that “expected [more] from the letter of the text than it could possibly supply” and that searched for hidden meanings “by means or artifices not justified by the nature of speech” (15). Moreover, Hofmann expressly acknowledged the importance of authorial intent. So for instance, Hofmann warns against taking figures of speech literally; otherwise, “the interpretation of the passage would become utterly estranged from its original intent” (67; italics mine).
[14] Though some have described Hofmann as a conservative theologian, his view of Scripture clearly distinguishes him from conservatives. On this point, see Christian Preus, “Contemporary Relevance of von Hofmann’s Hermeneutical Principles,” Interpretation 4, no. 3 (1950): 312.
[15] For more on Hofmann’s views on the relationship between personal experience, the confessions of the church, and the witness of Scripture in the task of theology, see Paul Leo, “Revelation and History in J. C. K. von Hofmann,” Lutheran Quarterly 10, no. 3 (1958): 206; Becker, “Life and Work of v. Hofmann,” 182–83; Matthew L. Becker, “Hofmann as Ich-Theologe? The Object of Theology in Johann von Hofmann’s Werke,” Concordia Journal 29, no. 3 (2003): 278–86. According to Kilcrease, Hofmann’s views on experience are owing to the influence of Schleiermacher. See Jack D. Kilcrease III, “Heilsgeschichte and Atonement in the Theology of J. C. K. von Hofmann: An Exposition and Critique,” Logia, 2013, 17–18.
[16] In fact, if one could legitimately construct a doctrine of Scripture from one’s experience of salvation and the church’s confession, Hofmann’s many criticisms of allegorical exegesis would fall flat. After all, many individual Christians throughout the church age have believed that such an approach is in keeping with their own religious experience; moreover, for many periods within its history, the church saw no contradiction between its doctrine of Scripture and the practice of allegorical interpretation.
[17] As Kilcrease rightly notes, “doctrine of inspiration is not something imposed on the text, but rather found within it.” See Kilcrease, “Heilsgeschichte and Atonement,” 15.
[18] See Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway, 2012), 99–101, 103–8.
[19] Kilcrease seems correct when he says that “for Hofmann the ultimate source of all authority is human religious experience and not the word of God.” See “Heilsgeschichte and Atonement,” 24. In addition, Preus states that “Hofmann opposed that type of biblicism which considered the Bible an external authority.” See “Contemporary Relevance,” 317.
[20] Johnston levels a similar critique of Hofmann’s views regarding the relationship between Scripture and divine revelation. As he says, “It is difficult to understand how such a system of organizing Christian teleology and epistemology could itself be claimed to have grown out of the Scriptures.” See Paul I. Johnston, “Reu Reconsidered: The Concept of Heilsgeschichte in the Hermeneutic of J. M. Reu and J. C. K. von Hofmann,” Concordia Journal 18, no. 4 (1992): 343.
[21] In other words, the Bible proclaims that God acted in history in such a way that certain events that could have been historically confirmed (at least by those who lived at the time) carried a significance that must be believed by faith. Surprisingly, Hofmann seems not to realize how devastating his claims about the limits of Scripture’s authority would be for the concept of Heilsgeschichte. After all, if Scripture’s witness regarding historical events cannot be trusted, then what confidence can one have in its testimony to salvation history?
[22] He suggests that, in order to maintain the complete truthfulness of Scripture, one must also believe that (1) biblical language must always be understood in literalistic fashion, (2) the speeches recounted in the Gospels and acts are recorded verbatim, and (3) the Gospels are exacting, chronological accounts of the life of Jesus (65–66, 205–7). However, none of these points follows logically from an affirmation of the Scripture’s complete truthfulness.
[23] In fact, Hofmann questions the legitimacy of all Scripture’s “doctrinal propositions.” As he states, “The saving truth which the Scripture proclaims authoritatively to the church does not consist in a series of doctrinal propositions, but rather in the fact that Jesus has mediated a connection between God and mankind” (76). However, Hofmann’s framing of the matter represents a false dichotomy: in reality, the saving truth proclaimed by Scripture can (and does) include both “doctrinal propositions” and the message regarding Christ’s mediatorial work.
[24] Thus, I can appreciate Leo’s suggestion that “we do well to dissociate [Hofmann’s] exegetical method to some extent from his system in order to have the true benefit from his hermeneutical principles.” See “Revelation and History,” 196.
