The Literal-Grammatical Historical Method

Most of us don’t have the term Hermeneutics in our vocabulary, understandably. It may seem complex at first, but a breakdown of the term will make it clear. 

It is tempting to let the professionals (Theologians) handle subjects like this one. However, learning some rules of bible interpretation helps to validate or correct our views on any text of the bible. If the word hermeneutics bothers you, just substitute the phrase interpretive rules for Bible study. We do have a very easy to use book listed below called Living By The Book – by our friend Howard Hendricks and son.

Implications for the Endtimes

After much study we have arrived at the conclusion that the Literal method described here is the best general method for determining meaning, and especially relative to Bible Prophecy. This has big implications here, especially the following areas that we will go into on other pages:

1. God’s Unconditional promises to the Jews, especially the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are still in effect for the Jews and the Nation of Israel. (the plain reading of the related texts, once allowed to be literal read this way)
2. The Church has not replaced Israel but was grafted in. A partial hardening of Israel is in effect until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. (Romans 11) That door will close when the Tribulation starts.
3. New Testament references to the Endtimes (7-Year tribulation, Antichrist, Satanic activities, Second Coming, are all future events as Jesus described.
4. The promised 1000 Year Millennial reign of Jesus Christ will be fulfilled literally as promised to King David, as expected by the Disciples of Jesus, and as indicated in Revelation 20.

Literal

We take the words for what they mean in their normal or plain sense. The majority of the Bible is written in clear and plain text, not symbolic and not in riddles, and the Bible is not a mystical book of allegories. When Jesus spoke in parables, the Bible says for example — Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed”.

The plain reading also means that things like miracles can’t easily be written off as symbolic, as some would like. For example, when the Bible says that God raised Lazarus from the dead, the language and context describe a literal event. There is no clear figurative language to suggest otherwise. If God can create the world, He can raise someone from the dead. The emphasis then is to find good interpretive rules and be very careful about not adjusting the rules to arrive at some happier or more convenient conclusion. :^}

Another example would be Jonah and the sea monster (whale). The Bible doesn’t give any indication that this should be taken figuratively, even if most do. As a matter of fact, Jesus certainly believed that 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, Jesus would symbolically be in the heart of the earth? That doesn’t fit with the example Jesus was giving, picturing his literal death and burial. Jesus literally died and was buried in a burial cave in the earth. Reading the story of Jonah, it is not told as an allegory, but the personal experience of a man named Jonah, and God’s dealing with the people of the ancient city of Nineveh. The comparison that Jesus makes to his own burial is more clear if Jonah was literally in the belly of the sea monster. This is a good example of how to use the literal method of interpretation based on the context and support from related passages.

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.”

So the Literal method doesn’t mean that we reject symbolism such as we will find in the book of Revelation or Old Testament prophetic visions. This is a misunderstanding. 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, but figuratively. This is acknowledged by our method of interpretation, and we will have examples in the various pages.

Grammatical

The interpretive process (exegesis) follows the rules of grammar, and is expected to use grammatical tools like figures of speech, analogy, simile, typology, metaphor, symbolism etc. When interpreting the Bible, standard grammatical tools must be recognized, and then interpreted in light of the normal usage of the grammatical tool. 

Also included here is the ability to use the original languages to determine the true sense of a word or sentence in its original structure. While not everyone knows Hebrew or Greek, most people reading this have access to a commentary or study-bible that will give notes on points of grammar from the original languages as well as some possible interpretations.

Historical

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 immediate context. 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. We also have extra-biblical writings from historians like Tacitus and Josephus. 

Further Reading