LITERAL GRAMMATICAL
HISTORICAL METHOD
It may seem complex at first, but a breakdown of the
term will make it clear. Most of us, unless we are theologians and students in
bible college, don't end up in too many discussions about hermeneutics.
I'm not sure if this is good or bad. It seems like Christians should be very
interested in being sure that they are interpreting the words of the Bible
correctly. Being able to defend our beliefs seems important to me. However, for
some reason, if you mention hermeneutics, many will give you a blank look. If
you wanted to talk about a triple coronary artery bypass, arteriosclerosis, or
schizophrenia, you won't have any problem. Those terms aren't too technical.
Nevertheless, it is an important issue. While you may
be tempted to just let your pastor handle subjects like this one, we are all
called by God to study His word, and to do our best at understanding it. The
book of Hebrews calls us all priests. A quick study of the interpretive rules
will prove very helpful in your future Bible study. If the word hermeneutics
bothers you, just substitute the phrase interpretive rules for Bible
study.
The principles of the Literal Grammatical Historical
approach encompass more than just the three terms. The term therefore represents
an approach to hermeneutics, or a set of rules.
Lets get started
- Literal - means that we
take the words for what they mean in their normal, or plain sense.
This means that we start out by taking the words in
their most normal meaning. If I say My house is red, you will
understand what I mean. There would be no question about it. However, if I say Listen
to this parable about the Homeowner, or used comparative words like the
word like as in like a roaring lion, you would understand that
my words might not be meant to be taken literally, but possibly figuratively. (I
ate like a horse last night)
Unfortunately, since many people today cannot accept
much of the Bible, it is convenient to make the parts that are undesirable
symbolic. For example, they can't believe that God raised Lazarus from the dead,
but they do claim to believe in creation. You may not want to let this secret
out, but if God can create the world, He can raise someone from the dead. This
method of interpretation makes no sense. It picks and chooses which items to
believe, and in a way that really just denies the personal God of the Bible. The
story about Lazarus is not told as a parable, but as an historic event. Another
example would be Jonah and the sea monster (whale?). The Bible doesn't give any
indication that this should be taken figuratively. As a matter of fact, Jesus
certainly believed in the story of Jonah was literal. Listen to what Jesus says
in Matthew 12:38-40
- Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him,
saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered
and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign;
and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the
prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth.
Was Jesus saying that in the same way that Jonah
symbolically was in the belly of the sea monster, I will be symbolically in the
heart of the earth? If this is the interpretation, Jesus would have needed to
tell the listeners that the story of Jonah was not to be taken literally so that
they could understand the non-literal example He was about to give. When we look
at what actually happened to Jesus, it is clear that He meant it literally, and
not symbolically.
In speaking about the Literal method, Bernard
Ramm in his book Protestant Biblical Interpretation says "This
does not deny that substantial doctrinal truth is conveyed symbolically,
parabolically, typically, and poetically. But as previously indicated, the
symbolic et al. (i) depend on the literal sense for their very existence, and
(ii) are controlled by the literal. For example, the effort to spiritualize the
Levitical priesthood and so make it a justification for a clergy-priesthood, is
to be rejected as it lacks New Testament verification."
My point being that Literal doesn't mean that
we reject symbolism. This is a misunderstanding among people in our day that
throw stones at those who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the
Bible. Is poetry to be taken literally? Certainly all biblical text has a point,
or literal truth, but the words being used to describe the truth may not be
meant to be taken literally. That is often the nature of poetry. This is
acknowledged by our method of interpretation.
- Grammatical - means we
follow the grammatical rules of literature
It follows the rules of grammar, and is expected to use
grammatical tools like similes, metaphors, etc. When interpreting the Bible,
standard grammatical tools must be recognized, and then interpreted in light of
the normal usage of the grammatical tool. 1 Peter 5:8 says "Your adversary,
the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
Does this mean that the devil is a Lion that eats people? No. It's very clear
that He is comparing the devil to a Lion. It tells us something of the nature
and purpose of the devil.
Also included here is the ability to use the original
languages to determine the true sense of a word. While not
everyone knows Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, most everyone has access to a
commentary that will give notes on points of grammar from the original language.
Language students might argue this point, but in most cases one can come up with
a correct interpretation of a passage of scripture with an English Bible, or
possibly a couple of versions of the English Bible.
- Historical
- means we seek with diligence to determine the historical background and
context before rendering an interpretation.
To drop the history of the time period is like
stripping any conversation from its context. Try applying everything in the book
of Jeremiah to today. Forget about the fact that he is directing much of his
words at the southern kingdom of Judah thousands of years ago, warning them to
repent or be sent into exile. Should we fear that our country is about to be
sent into captivity for 70 years?
We are very fortunate today to have more information
about Bible times than has been known before. Archaeological discoveries have
opened many doors to understanding biblical history better, and thus the context
of the books of the Bible.
Additional rules
- Interpret according to context
The Bible must be interpreted as part of a whole. To be
more precise, each passage of scripture has 1. its immediate
context, 2. the context of the book it belongs to (and author),
3. and the context of the whole of the Bible. This is a rule of
interpretation that is quite often broken it seems. New interpretations of
familiar passages of scripture often make a mistake of context. Spiritualizing
scripture in places that don't warrant this kind of interpretation often breaks
this rule of context. Words mean things only within their context.
- Compare scripture with scripture
This may seem like common sense but historically it
wasn't always practiced. All truth in the Bible should be compared against the
Bible since God doesn't contradict Himself. This of course assumes a belief in
the verbal inspiration of scripture.
Where does the inspiration and infallibility of the
Bible come in? Actually, it's the first and most important truth that has led us
to our method of Bible interpretation. What would be the sense in believing in
the importance of historical context if the history was incorrect? Not much.
Even more important, how can we go to the Bible for spiritual truth if there are
errors in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, who is going to decide which words
are true, and which are not? Did God leave us to use our imperfect human mind to
determine truth? God wouldn't be too smart, or loving if He did that, since it
is a losing plan. The answer is before us. So many groups today claim to have
the truth, and their truth is diametrically opposed to the Bible. They have
decided the Bible is wrong, or was written for some other time, and that they
have come to the truth by using their human wisdom and intellect. Now, isn't it
interesting that no one can judge the beliefs of someone that doesn't believe
what the Bible says, because once we say the Bible is wrong, once again, truth
is up for grabs. The private interpretation of individuals claiming to have new
truth is what leads people into cults.
Why are there so many groups today, with so many
beliefs? Partly because clear stated truths in the Bible are not accepted. Man
has become the source of knowledge, and not God and His word. This happened when
liberal scholars decided that God's word was not correct, and we therefore now
need their wisdom to come to real truth. In short, they have rejected the
personal God of the Bible, who Himself claims to be the source of all truth, and
who Himself claims to care that we are able to know the truth. The Bible either
*IS* the standard for knowing truth, or it is not. It can't be both. Partial
truth doesn't help anyone.
We don't condemn those that don't believe the Bible. We
are in a battle however with those that claim to believe the Bible, but then say
that it can't be trusted to have absolute truth. This is an absurd position,
since it denies the ability of the God in the Bible to clearly give truth to the
people He created. If God didn't give us any clear truth, then we are in even
worse trouble, since that would show that God doesn't really care. Does anyone
really want to die to face an all-powerful being that doesn't care about us?
That's too horrible to even imagine.
In relation to the putting together of the books of the
Bible, finished in the 4th century A.D., there are two things that need to be
understood, outside of the historical record, if one is to understand and
believe that the Bible is actually the word of God. I understand that the
reasoning here may seem to be on an emotional level. In part I'm sure it is,
however, the Bible does teach these things as truths about God.
- God cares about us
- God interacts in history when needed
If you can believe these two statements, then you can
believe that God protected His word and made it all part of the completed Bible
that we have right now. The Canon, or the present 66 books of the Bible were put
together during the early church. If God did not guide this process, then you
can certainly make claim that He does NOT interact in human history. For, if He
could not even keep His own word pure, as the OT states it is, then there is no
way to know truth, since He doesn't really care anyway.
On the contrary, God has made it clear that He does
care by protecting the manuscripts. This is not to say that every translation
from the original language is perfect. The words are God's in the original
language, and in the original manuscripts. It is true that we don't have any
original manuscripts, but we do have thousands of different manuscripts that all
agree on all major points of doctrine. There are some minor differences that
were introduced by copying mistakes, made by scribes. The debates over which
manuscripts are better will no doubt continue, but it doesn't lead to the
conclusion that our Bible is not correct. The fact that the thousands of
existing manuscripts agree is proof that we have the correct text in our Bible.
Also important to note is that different Bible
translations had different objectives, like easy reading vs. word for word
translation, and may therefore come out with some wording that will seem
slightly different. This is unavoidable when translating from one language to
another, and especially in this case where one of the languages, Koine Greek, is
a dead language. (Unspoken)
Our Bible is reliable. This is provable.
2 Timothy 3:16 ... "All Scripture is inspired by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good
work."
1 Peter 1:10... "and though you have not seen Him,
you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly
rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of
your faith the salvation of your souls. 10 As to this salvation, the prophets
who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search
and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within
them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to
follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but
you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who
preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into
which angels long to look."
2 Peter 1:20... "But know this first of all, that
no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God."
Hebrews 4:12... "For the Word of God is living and
active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division
of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts
and intentions of the heart.
Joshua 1:8 - This book of the law shall not depart from
your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be
careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make
your way prosperous, and then you will have success.
|
