Over against the fourfold meaning of Scripture held by the Roman Catholic Church, this article shows why the Reformers held to the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation.

The interpretation of how Hosea 11:1 uses Matthew 2:15 has a troubled history. Beale gives a short overview of interpretations before he offers his grammatical-historical and biblical-theological approach. Beale concludes that Matthew makes a comparison between Jesus as the "son" with the "son" of Hosea.

The Second Council of Constantinople anathematized the literal historical approach of interpreting Scripture associated with the School of Antioch as the breeder of heresy, while the council embraced allegory as the proper method of interpretation. This article looks at the historical account of these events.