Biblical Hermenuetics
Lesson Four—The Literal School of Interpretation
Introduction
I trust that it’s now apparent how important our hermeneutical principles are. We’ve examined a
couple of schools of thought on the subject where the written words are interpreted in a very
different sense than what they actually say. Either, as in the allegorical method, they are merely
the keys to a deeper, allegorical meaning, or, as in the liberal method, they may well be the
inventions of human authors setting forth their own, private agenda.
Standing contrary to these trends is what is usually called the “Literal School” of Hermenuetics.
This methodology is that embraced by almost every conservative scholar and Bible school in
existence today. The term “literal” is somewhat misleading, however. Usually, as the term is
used, it implies that something literally true is physically true, and that’s not always the case. For
instance, Nicodemus understood Jesus’ insistence on a new birth in the physical sense when he
was speaking of a spiritual birth. Was Jesus speaking “literally”? Yes. For a spiritual birth is a
real, literal birth—just as real as a physical birth.
Interpreting the Bible "literally" does not mean taking every word in its literal sense. Rather, it
means taking every sentence in its literal meaning. The difference between these two points is
significant. Take for example the following verse:
“Thus says the LORD, Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool (Isaiah 66:1).
If we are to interpret every word of this passage literally, then not only does God have incredibly
large feet, but He likes to rest them upon the earth which He uses as some kind of cosmic
ottoman! Obviously, such an interpretation is nonsensical. If, in sharp contrast, we take literally
the meaning of this passage, we realize that through various figures of speech (i.e., metaphor
and anthropomorphism), the Bible is clearly communicating to us the sovereignty and dominion of
God over all things.
Sometimes this mode of interpretation is called the “plain sense” mode. In fact, a common saying
in hermeneutical circles is “When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no
other sense.” Therefore, we are to take the words of scripture in their usual, primary sense
unless there are clear and solid reasons not to do so. Thus, this method allows for interpreting
figurative language, analogies and metaphors, as well as the prophetical and vision-based
sections of scripture in a less than rigid way than, say, a historical or didactic section of scripture.
The Grammatico-Historical Method of Interpretation
A more technical term for this method of interpretation is “Grammatico-Historical”. First, as the
name implies, this method deals with the grammar of the scripture itself. This approach concerns
itself with such questions as “What do the words literally mean?”, “How are these words used?”,
an “What is the literally form where these words are found?”. Secondly, it’s called “Historical” for
it deals with the historical setting in which these words were spoken. Thus, it takes into account
the cultural setting of the audience, as well as where the hearer was in the history of God’s
dealings with man. So, this method asks “Who was the author?”, “What was the author’s
setting?”, and “What did these words mean to the man to whom they were first spoken?”.
Following this line of thought, we want to step through principles that flow from it. These are not
rigid, infallible rules comprising a mechanism whereby we input a text at one end and out pops
the interpretation at the other. Rather, they are more like guideposts, or reminders, helping us
arrive at a God-honoring conclusion.
Principle #1: The Contextual Principle
In Real Estate it’s commonly said that there are three things to keep in mind about any property:
“Location, location, and location”. The same could be said for any scripture passage. If we lift a
verse of scripture out of its immediate context we are almost guaranteeing a wrong interpretation!
D. A. Carson has said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” By “proof text”, he
means a verse cited to “prove” a particular point of view. The word “text” is from a Latin word
meaning “to weave”. Just as a particular strand is not to be separated from the others in a
weaving, so we must not lift a text of scripture from its immediate surroundings. In other words, a
text from the Bible must be interpreted within the structure of the Bible itself. To do otherwise,
using texts as rigid maxims, is not to honor God’s Word, but to torture it!
Examples:

Does I Cor. 14:34 declare a woman shouldn’t open her mouth in a church service?

Doesn’t Exodus 20:13 rule out capital punishment?

Why can’t we have women pastors on the basis of Gal. 3:28?

Wouldn’t Gal. 5:2 imply that any circumcised male is lost?
Principle #2: The Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle
This principle points out that the Bible furnishes us the information we need with which to
understand it. For instance, when we encounter the word “priest”, we don’t need to run to the
Catholic church (or others) who have such an office in order to understand it. The Bible defines
the term for us the very way it would have us think of it. This is also true of many doctrines such
as “redemption”, “sacrifice”, or “covenant”. Another way to put this is to say that the Bible
supplies its own Glossary. This isn’t to deny that extra-Biblical information isn’t helpful, but simply
that it’s not essential.
We also acknowledge that important doctrines are not to be founded on a single, ambiguous
passage. Instead, we are to expect that things that are critical to our understanding are clearly
presented to us in several portions of scripture. Thus, we are to compare all of the scriptural data
surrounding a particular topic before making conclusions concerning that topic. We are to look
for sections that discuss a doctrine in a similar context, and we are to allow the clear sections of
scripture to determine our understanding of more obscure sections. We must not found our
understanding of doctrine upon the typical, figurative, or even historical sections of scripture.
Rather, we are to allow the didactic portions of God’s Word to guide our thinking when it comes to
important doctrines. These other types of passages certainly help clarify and illustrate doctrinal
truth, but they should not be the overruling consideration in determining that truth.
Examples:


Can we support “baptism for the dead” from I Cor. 15:29?
Since the word for “scapegoat” in Lev. 16 is “Azazel”, a word used to refer to Satan,
aren’t Seventh-Day Adventists correct in saying Satan will be the final sin-bearer?