THE GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL METHOD OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION PRESENTED TO DR. WAYNE LAYTON BIBL 5723A: BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS BY TREVOR RAY SLONE MANHATTAN, KS AUGUST 30, 2012
There has always been a battle for the Bible. Church history is plagued with deviant views on the topic. Origen (AD 185-254) denied the historicity of parts of Genesis and allegorized other passages as well. The biblical views of Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350-423) were challenged in the Middle Ages and afterward. During the Reformation, Calvin charged Servetus (AD 1511-53) with denying the factual inerrancy of parts of the Bible. Until modern times, however, none of the deviant views on Scripture became mainstream. 1 As the above quote shows, the problem of giving less credence to the Scriptures than what is appropriate is nothing new. 2 To be sure there are people like Bart Ehrman, Mike Licona, and others who, while often teaching at historically conservative seminaries and universities, nevertheless use methods of interpreting the Bible that are far from what may be considered as orthodox. Mike Licona goes out of his way throughout his recent book The Resurrection of Jesus to deny that certain aspects of the Gospel accounts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus are true, 3 and Ehrman has a plethora of books credited to his name at this time that openly violate the concept of a Bible that is one hundred percent truthful and accurate in all that it speaks about. There are also many, many others who hold similar views these days regarding the Bible, and this problem fundamentally stems from a moving away from the orthodox interpretation position known as the grammatical-historical approach. In this paper there will first be a discussion of what exactly the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation is and some of its most prominent features. Then there will be a brief comparison between the grammatical-historical method of interpretation and various other methods of biblical interpretation, followed by a defense of why the grammatical-historical method is superior to other methods. Finally, this 1 Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 17. 2 This statement of course assumes that the Bible is fully inspired in both all of its words and all of its ideas. 3 Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010).
paper will entail a few brief examples of how utilizing this method of interpretation can be beneficial when interpreting the biblical text, followed by some concluding remarks. What Exactly Is the Grammatical-Historical Interpretive Approach? So what exactly is grammatical-historical interpretation? Well, put simply it is a type of interpretation that involves the necessity of properly understanding the grammar of a text, including the precise meaning of the individual words and also the intricacies of the syntactical structures within the various sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, testaments, and the Bible as a whole. Grammatical-historical interpretation also includes the proper utilization of context both within and surrounding a given passage, from the words within each sentence to the Bible as a whole. The historical aspect of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation involves seeking out the precise historical setting of a given passage, including what was going on at the time that the passage was written and also what the passage would have meant to the original audience when they read or heard it. This is not rocket science, as all of this can be gathered simply by thinking about what the terms grammar and history mean, for that is the essence of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. There are however many other features of the grammatical-historical approach to interpreting the Bible that cannot necessarily be derived from simply understanding the basic meaning of these two terms, although some of them may be able to be infered from such an understanding. One of these other features is the idea that etymological considerations regarding the words of the text are incredibly important. 4 This is not to say that etymology always has the last word in biblical interpretation, for sometimes the meaning of the parts of a word do not equal 4 Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002), 218.
the meaning of the word as a whole, especially in certain contexts, but it is of great value to the interpreter nevertheless. Another feature of the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation is that it is interested not just in synchronics (the study of how a particular word was used at the time that the given text was written), but it is also interested in diachronics (the study of the history of the usage of a particular word). 5 Again it is true that these methods do not in and of themselves determine the meaning of a word, for context is equally relevant in determining such matters, but they are still helpful for a proper understanding of both the grammatical and the historical aspects of a given passage. The importance of studying synonyms and allowing for their shades of meaning is also something that is typical of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. 6 Writers sometimes use terms that are similar but not exactly the same in meaning to further accentuate there literary purposes. The grammatical-historical approach takes this literary method seriously. One final principle of the grammatical-historical interpretation method is summed up nicely by Duval and Hays when they say, The way we approach the Bible (i.e. the way we listen to God) should match how God gave us the Bible (i.e. the way God chose to speak). 7 In other words, while it is true that God speaks to all people through all time in His word, from the time that it was written onward, He chose to use specific people with specific personalities who used specific writing styles and lived in specific cultures at specific times to present His message to humanity. This, being a decision made by God Himself, should therefore not be taken lightly. 5 Ibid, 217-219. 6 Ibid, 221. 7 J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 99.
All people should respect these various aspects of biblical writing to the point where they are never, ever overlooked in the process of one s interpretive endeavors. A Brief Comparison of the Grammatical-Historical Method and Other Methods The first method of interpretation that is going to be compared to the grammaticalhistorical method actually covers a wide range of sub-methods. This method involves bringing one s pre-understanding to the text. For instance, a feminist who is convinced that God would never put men over women in any way, shape, or form would automatically, if she interprets the Bible in light of this pre-understanding, view the pre-fall creation account of Genesis in which God creates woman to be man s helper as anything but implying that women are somehow and in some sense subordinate to men. Now, this passage from Genesis will be addressed below as an example of the use of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. For now let it just be seen that bringing one s pre-understanding to the text when attempting to interpret the Bible not only hinders one from seeing God s intention for any given passage of Scripture, but it also is very contrary to the grammatical-historical method, as the grammatical-historical method necessarily rejects any notion of bringing any pre-understandings (that are not biblically verifiable) to the text when interpreting the Scriptures. One sub-method of this method of bringing one s pre-understanding to the text is known as redaction criticism. Redaction criticism of the Bible claims that subsequent editors (redactors) changed the text of Scripture. 8 This view, if it is true of the Bible, would seriously damage the Bible s credibility. 9 Redaction criticism raises many questions regarding the historical context of when exactly various books of the Bible, and various sections of those 8 Norman L. Geisler, Redaction Criticism, Old Testament, in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 635. 9 Ibid.
books were written. If the various books in the Bible were written and rewritten by multiple individuals over an unknown span of time then no one can be certain of when the various texts were written, and so everyone is at a loss to discover the historical context of the given passage, because the historical context refers to the setting in history in which the writer wrote the Bible passage. 10 Therefore, redaction criticism is necessarily a highly subjective method of viewing and analyzing the biblical text, which can only lead to further uncertainty regarding the meaning of the various passages of which the historical context is unknown. This flies in the face of the grammatical-historical approach, for as Robert L. Thomas, a strong advocate of the grammaticalhistorical approach, points out, God intended the recipients of His Word to be certain of what He meant to convey in His Word, not for them to be uncertain and confused as to the meaning and purpose of the Scriptures. 11 Grammatical-historical interpretation necessitates that the historical aspects of the Bible can be (not necessarily is) known with certainty, for if not then half of the method, namely the historical half, would be untenable. Redaction criticism also raises additional questions since it assumes that the biblical text has been edited, especially numerous times, such as whether or not the Bible is inspired by God. After all, if the Bible was edited then, if God wrote the Bible, He must have made some initial mistakes right? Some people argue that if someone edited something that does not necessarily mean that the initial writer made mistakes, and that possibly the editor just enhanced the original writing, but that does not work when God is the initial author, because God is necessarily a perfect Being, and He and His Word cannot be enhanced even by Himself, for to enhance perfection is to necessarily go beyond perfection, which is absurd and impossible, for perfection 10 Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 30. 11 Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, 226.
is necessarily a quality of utmost flawlessness and totality. 12 So if the Bible has been edited and rewritten by various sources over the years, then the Bible is not the Word of God, plain and simple, since God s Word cannot rightfully be edited. Therefore, redaction criticism must be rejected on the grounds that it ignores passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and others that refer to al of Scripture being the very word and breath of God. The next method of biblical interpretation that is now going to be compared to the grammatical-historical method in this paper is the dynamic-equivalence method of interpretation. Now, one very prominent Bible translation that is a result of the dynamic-equivalence method of interpretation is the NIV. Anyone who reads the NIV carefully, especially if they compare it to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, will notice that there are many large differences between what the original languages say and what the NIV says in many of the various passages of the NIV Bible. To be sure, the major theological issues are kept intact in the NIV translation (at least to my knowledge), but the language that is used in the NIV is generally so modernized that it is clear that the translators, when they interpreted the Bible, were more concerned with the gist of the meaning of the various passages than they were with staying true to the original words and phrases used by the biblical authors. It should be noted here though that the NIV is far from fullblown dynamic-equivalence. For that one would need to look at something like the Cotton Patch Version of the Bible. In this version of the Scriptures, produced by Clarence Jordan, Annas and Caiaphas are correspondents of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jesus is born in Gainesville, Georgia, and lynched rather than being crucified. 13 This type of interpretation and translation 12 This does not mean that perfection entails everything, but rather that everything it does entail it entails to the fullest extent possible. 13 Ibid, 89.
very clearly violates both the grammatical and the historical aspects of traditional interpretation (the grammatical-historical method). The dynamic-equivalence method of interpretation also attempts to do away with ambiguities in the original text in the translation process. 14 This may seem like a good thing, but in reality, when you consider the fact that if a passage in the Bible is ambiguous in the original languages to those that thoroughly understand the biblical languages and the historical setting that the passage was written in, then the passage is most likely meant to be ambiguous, 15 then this attempt by the dynamic-equivalence method to remove ambiguity becomes a problem. It is true that to some extent dynamic-equivalence is a method of translation rather than a method of interpretation, but considering the fact that so many people attempt to interpret the Bible by using such Bible translations as the NIV, rather than by using the Greek and Hebrew texts, it seems more than appropriate to mention such a method in a discussion such as this regarding interpretation methods, for the translation methods of the advocates of dynamic-equivalence directly affect the interpretive process of those who attempt to utilize the translations that are a result of the dynamic-equivalence method in their interpretive journey, especially if they do not understand the original languages. Since dynamic-equivalence does not respect either the grammatical or the historical dimensions of the biblical text to the extent that seems most appropriate in light of a view of full inspiration, 16 it too must be rejected as a viable option for both interpretation and translation. 14 Ibid, 84-86. 15 We can only guess why God would do this. Most likely it is to make us think harder and be more diligent regarding our biblical interpretation endeavors. This is also yet another reason why it is a good idea, if possible, to learn Greek and Hebrew. 16 By full inspiration I mean something along the lines of complete dictation of plenary verbal dictation of the biblical text by God.
The final interpretation method, which is also a sub-method of the above mentioned preunderstanding method, that will be discussed in this paper is the method of genre criticism. This approach, along with redaction criticism (mentioned above) is sometimes known as the Grammatical-critical-historical interpretive approach. 17 Genre critics start their interpretive process with certain assumptions based on what type of genre they feel a particular book or passage in the Bible may be. For instance, many people interpret the book of Revelation as purely symbolic because they believe that Revelation fits into the genre category of apocalyptic literature. 18 The way that they come to their initial assumptions is by viewing other apocalyptic literature from around the same time in history that Revelation is believed to have been written, and then discovering commonalities between those various pieces of literature. For instance, heavy symbolism is seen in all apocalyptic literature written around the time of the first century AD. Another genre that is often used to interpret certain biblical books in a non-grammaticalhistorical manner these days is the gospel genre. Those who advocate such an interpretive method tend to assume that the gospels are generally full of errors and contradictions, and that they are not inherently historically reliable, since ancient documents similar to the gospels in the Bible were often times not intended, or so the genre critics say, to be taken as factually true, but rather the authors often just wanted to get a point across and so they used whatever words or phrases were necessary to make the biggest impact on their audience. 19 However, the grammatical-historical method accepts the Gospels as historically factual. 20 Just like with redaction criticism, if the text cannot be trusted to be reliable, such as these methods insinuate, then divine inspiration gets thrown out the window. It is true that some types of genre should, at 17 Ibid, 279. 18 Revelation actually more accurately fits into the category of biblical Prophecy rather than apocalyptic literature. See Edward Hindson, The Book of Revelation: Unlocking the Future (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002), 1. 19 Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, 271-308. 20 Ibid, 274.
times, be interpreted in a non-literal manner, such as poetry, but even then the grammaticalhistorical approach is to be preferred, for the historical aspect is necessary to understand what the figures of speech in the poetry may be referring to, and the grammatical aspect is necessary because, quite simply, poetry is written with words, and words have meanings. Why the Grammatical-Historical Method Is Superior to Other Methods Many of the reasons why it is appropriate to view the grammatical-historical method of interpretation as superior to other methods have already been listed above, so this section will be brief. One of the most important reasons that this method is to be preferred over other methods is its stance on biblical inspiration and inerrancy. If the Bible is not fully inspired and completely inerrant, then there is no way for humanity to know which parts are true and which parts are not. If the Bible is not one hundred percent trustworthy in every sense and in every passage, then there must necessarily be a very high level of subjectivity enforced when evaluating the biblical text, because humans do not have any other source of divine revelation to tell us what parts of Scripture are true. Therefore, if the Bible is to be useful on any level other than a purely subjective human one, then it must necessarily be viewed as completely inerrant and completely inspired, down to the individual words and syntactical structures themselves. The grammaticalhistorical method is the only method that takes these concepts, namely complete inspiration and complete inerrancy, completely seriously, and so on that note the grammatical-historical method is to be preferred over all other interpretive methods. Another reason why the grammatical-historical method is to be preferred over other methods that is linked to the above mentioned reasons is that the grammatical-historical method
allows for no human gaffes in recording their descriptions. 21 Other interpretive methods that take the inspiration of Scripture less seriously inevitably open the door for authorial errors, including contradictions and historical errors or even flat out lies. It is simply unacceptable, due to the reasons listed above, to assume that these types of things are ever found in the Scriptures, for again if there are errors in the Bible, how are we to know which passages are true and which ones are not? 22 One final reason that the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is to be preferred over other methods is the simple fact that it just makes the most sense. When someone writes a non-fiction book, whatever that book may be about, that author intends a certain meaning for everything that he or she says in that book. That is why languages are (generally) so intricate and filled with rules of grammar and definitions of terms, so that effective communication can take place. There is also the need to understand the cultural setting of the individual writing the book so as to better understand the intentions of the author. To be sure, there are certain topics where the historical setting is more relevant than others, but for anything even remotely similar to the Bible, such as narrative history, law, and personal letters, historical and cultural context are absolutely vital to fully understanding such writings. And so it just makes sense to take seriously the grammar and the history involved in the biblical text. After all, God is perfect, and He chose to communicate with humanity by way of the Scriptures. Should man assume that God is inept to communicate effectively? Surely not! The Scriptures must therefore, as they say, be taken at face value (while taking figures of speech and such into consideration of course). 21 Ibid, 287. 22 Do not misunderstand me here. I am not advocating a pragmatic approach to biblical inerrancy and inspiration. Rather I am claiming that the pragmatic problems inherent in denying complete biblical inerrancy and complete inspiration are grave enough to reject all methods that assume such a denial.
Two Examples of Using the Grammatical-Historical Approach The first example that is going to be discussed here regarding the use of the grammaticalhistorical method of biblical interpretation is the one that was alluded to above. The true emphasis of the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman is often times these days explained away by complimentarians. They tend to be influenced by feminist ideology and so they are uncomfortable stating that man was created to rule over the woman. Yes, it is true that man and woman are both equal in dignity and self-worth, as Genesis 1:26-28 makes clear, but the Bible makes it clear that woman was created specifically for man, that Adam actually names Eve, that Adam conveys God s command to Eve, and that the curses in Genesis 3, rather than introducing new realities into the relationship between the man and the woman, merely promised difficulties in the already existing state of affairs. 23 This evidence of pre-fall sex distinctions is based on the grammatical evidence in the Genesis passage in that it takes the wording and the context seriously, and it is based on the historical setting of the passage in that it takes seriously that the distinction between man and woman was made prior to the fall and therefore from a theological perspective the sex distinctions, namely that woman was made to be man s helper, are still valid today, regardless of what the feminists want to think. The idea of women being equal in value but subordinate in position to man should not offend women, for after all Jesus is equal in value to the Father and yet subordinate in position to Him, and it is certainly not appropriate to insinuate that this subordination somehow diminishes Christ in any way. Neither does the subordination of women diminish them in any way. So, the Genesis passage regarding the creation of man and woman can be applied to today s society by holding that while men and women are equal in value, they are nevertheless not equal in status, such as in marriage. The wife 23 Michael L. Chiavone, Lecture 14: The Sexes, in an unpublished class lecture from Temple Baptist Seminary professor, 2012.
is called, due to the very nature of how and why she was created, to be her husband s helper, and the husband, due to the nature of his creation and the fact that he was given the charge to rule over her, is called to treat his wife with the best of care, for God has given her to him, and all people should treat gifts given to them by God with the utmost honor and respect. The other passage that is going to be discussed here concerning the use of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is Isaiah 7:14. Many people argue that this passage has a double fulfillment. However, this passage says that a virgin (an unmarried woman) will bear a son and that birth will be a sign from God, and the son s name will be Immanuel. The birth of the son of Isaiah, which is what most people claim is the other meaning of the passage, not only would not qualify as a sign, since it would not be anything out of the ordinary, but Isaiah s wife who bore his son was also married to him (obviously), and his son s name was not Immanuel. 24 Therefore, in light of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, this passage is a prophecy referring to, and only to, the birth of Jesus the Christ, as is clearly indicated in Matthew 1:23. We must remember that the grammatical-historical method also holds that there is always only one meaning for any given passage. 25 This passage (Isa. 7:14) can be applied in today s world most notably by using it in an apologetic sense with Jews and others as another reason to believe that Jesus really is the Messiah that was foretold of in the Old Testament. 24 Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, 243. 25 There is no room for a discussion here of how the New Testament authors put additional meanings on Old Testament passages, so suffice it to say that the meanings that the NT writers added to the OT texts are derived from the NT text, not the OT text, and so there is in essence a single OT meaning and a single NT meaning for such passages. See Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, 241-264.
Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has shown what exactly the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation is and some of its principles and features. In this paper there has also been a comparison of the grammatical-historical method and other methods of interpretation. Finally there was a brief defense of why the grammatical-historical method is superior to other methods and then a few examples of how the method is used in a practical sense. Everyone that wishes to please God and stay true to legitimate Christian convictions and theology should use the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation, for as has been shown above, any other method ultimately kicks inspiration and inerrancy to the curb, and when that happens the Bible becomes nothing more than just another old book. Bibliography Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Chiavone, Michael L. Lecture 14: The Sexes. in an unpublished class lecture from Temple Baptist Seminary professor, 2012. Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Geisler, Norman L. Redaction Criticism, Old Testament. in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999. Geisler, Norman L., and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011. Hindson, Edward. The Book of Revelation: Unlocking the Future. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002.
Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002.