# Historico-grammatical



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

How would you explain the historico-grammatical method of interpretation?


----------



## raderag (Aug 4, 2005)

My understanding, though somewhat limited, is that it is a literal interpretation that gives much more weight to the surrounding circumstances and "original intent" than to the analogy of faith. In fact, I don't think this can be your primary hermeneutic if you hold to the analogy of faith.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

So we have the "historical context", merged with studying grammer and sytax to gain the writer's "original intent."

Is this foolproof?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> So we have the "historical context", merged with studying grammer and sytax to gain the writer's "original intent."
> 
> Is this foolproof?



With all these questions you have lately I think you might want to reconsider that 'Doctor' title.  Okay that was mean, sorry...

No it is not foolproof because we often come with preconceived notions about the historical context and even about grammar and syntax. 

It also needs to be coupled with the analogia fidei. But it is a good place to start.


----------



## raderag (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> So we have the "historical context", merged with studying grammer and sytax to gain the writer's "original intent."
> 
> Is this foolproof?



What I find is that there are too many assumptions made to find the "original intent". When we see scripture as God's undivided progressive revelation (analogy of faith), we can see a unity in the message and not get too caught up in the details. Of course these details are very important. I would say that this method can be effective in understanding non-prophetic books that have very little new revelation, such as the non-Pauline epistles. Even the dispensationalist have a hard time applying it to acts or the Gospels, as the analogy of faith is almost explicit. 

Most of my understanding of this is based on fundamentalism/dispensationalism.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

> With all these questions you have lately I think you might want to reconsider that 'Doctor' title. Okay that was mean, sorry...



 I forgive you!

Seriously, my intention is to help us talk about things that are 1) biblically important, 2) fundamental to the Reformed faith, and 3) something that gives the board an overall flavor of diversity. Sometimes we tend to have 25 threads on the same topic said in 25 different ways. That's not necessarily bad, but its good to keep the "energy" of the board up by talking about things that are essential to us as Reformed Christians, and something that everyone can chime in on.

Most of the posts I've set out there in the last four days could be discussed by anyone onthe board. With EP, for example, that is not necessarily true.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > With all these questions you have lately I think you might want to reconsider that 'Doctor' title. Okay that was mean, sorry...
> ...



I can agree with this. To tell you the truth, your questions are really making me think about subjects I can't say I spend too much time on. So kudos to you sir!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2005)

Would typology fall under the historico-grammatical?

[Edited on 8--4-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> My understanding, though somewhat limited, is that it is a literal interpretation that gives much more weight to the surrounding circumstances and "original intent" than to the analogy of faith.



I'd agree in general. However, by "literal interpretation" intelligent adherents mean that they take the words, clauses, propositions, etc... in their normative sense as dictated by both genre and context. (Thus, no one would take Psalm 98:8 as saying that rivers have hands...) 

I don't have a problem with it - in fact, I find it quite helpful. Looking at the immediate context in which a verse is found helps a lot in combatting the claims of (let's say, for example) Mormons and JWs... 
I do think that the grammatic-historical method is the most natural - and sound - way of interpretating a written work. We use it when reading and interpreting any other written document. 
I love systematizing, and thus I am all for putting together the pieces of the puzzle into a coherent whole, but what I love about the grammatic-historical method is that it best gives me the tools to answer the question, "What is God saying with this particular piece of the puzzle?"


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Would typology fall under the historico-grammatical?
> 
> [Edited on 8--4-05 by Draught Horse]



It can. The reason is that in some ways typology is a literary/rhetorical tool. However, a historico-grammatical approach to Scripture would say that the only allowable types (that is, the only ones that we can actually preach with divine authority behind them) are the ones given to us in Scripture. It does limit me in that that I can't say that the red cord hanging from Rahab's window represents the blood of Christ (no matter how "obvious" or "easy" it is to make this connection) with any real divine authority because the Bible itself doesn't make that connection. Am I making any sense?


----------



## raderag (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



The problem with this is that HG is often more interested in defining the puzzle piece than the overall puzzle.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> The problem with this is that HG is often more interested in defining the puzzle piece than the overall puzzle.



It is not the HG (thanks for shortening it!) method that is the problem... it is the one employing it. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
At the same time, however, I'm trying to think of one conservative scholar/pastor who has used the HG to deny a cardinal doctrine... None come to mind off hand.
Sure, the HG is especially popular in Dispensational circles, though the principles of the HG method are so self-evident that this results in it being used in virtually every exegesis class in evangelical/conservative seminaries. (Even if the professor neglects to call it "the historico-grammatical method.")
Do Dispensationalists use the HG method to arrive at their pre-trib premillenialism? Sure they do... but I - and many others - believe that when they do this they have done so at the expense of the context in which those verses come. So I think that what they have done is _ab_used the HG method.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I see where you are going, but I do think it can restrict the interpretation. 
Can we see Solomon in Psalm 72 as a type of Christ?

If Christ is the Second Adam, can we see the Church as the Restored Eve? After all, the Church is the Bride of Christ (btw, fi we take this approach we immediately rebutt with good reason the Da Vinci Code).

In fact, can we see Christ as:
--the Greater Noah who takes his family onboard the ark of his church in order to save them from the flood of God´s wrath.

--the Greater Jacob who claims his birthright and limps to victory.

--the Greater Joseph, who has been humiliated and left for dead by his own brothers, but is then vindicated and exalted. As world ruler, he saves the nations by offering bread and wine from his own table.

--as Great David´s Greater Son, who defeats giants, remains the secret messiah, and finally takes possession of the kingdom.

--as Jeremiah, he is a weeping prophet, who announces judgment on Israel and the temple.

--the Greater Ezra, building a better temple, and the Greater Nehemiah, building a city with heavenly foundations.

--the one who gives Sabbath rest, he is the Tree of Life, the Rock in the wilderness gushing with living water, the cornerstone on which unbelievers stumble and on which the house of God is erected, etc.


Granted, we want to avoid the "scarlet thread" approach. I agree with you that we ought to make explicit typological references, but what about implicit ones? For the record, I don't think that the scarlet thread is an implicit reference.

If we view the Bible as one great story (not for once diminishing the theology/history of it), then it makes perfect sense to draw literary allusions/references. In fact, it is demanded, given the premises.

The reason I purport this is that the historico-grammatical method, if applied to rigidly to the scriptures, cannot appear to justify some of the Bible's conclusions. Here are a few examples:

Hosea 11:1, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
=
Matthew 2:15, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "œOut of Egypt I called my son."

That appears stretched on the strict historical method, but given the typological method (and a love for fuzziness) and the right premises, it is perfectly justified.*

-------------------------
There is also the infamous Galatians 4:24.



*i.e., Christ impersonated the nation of Israel and placed himself in the middle of their story.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 6, 2005)

I'm relatively new to Covenant Theology, having come from a primarily Dispensational backround (although I was exposed to Lutheranism in the LCMS during adolesence). I've had a College-level Hermeneutics courses from a Dispensational perspective and also spent two years studying intensely for Ordination in a "Dispensational sect". All of this was heavily historical/grammatical.

Could someone give a brief explanation and/or links to articles/books of how Reformed/Covenant Theology employs h/g hermeneutical principles? Taking a seminary-level Reformed hermeneutics course(s) is "on my list" but will have to wait a while.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> I'm relatively new to Covenant Theology, having come from a primarily Dispensational backround (although I was exposed to Lutheranism in the LCMS during adolesence). I've had a College-level Hermeneutics courses from a Dispensational perspective and also spent two years studying intensely for Ordination in a "Dispensational sect". All of this was heavily historical/grammatical.
> 
> Could someone give a brief explanation and/or links to articles/books of how Reformed/Covenant Theology employs h/g hermeneutical principles? Taking a seminary-level Reformed hermeneutics course(s) is "on my list" but will have to wait a while.



Biblical Hermeneutics

Biblical Apocalyptics , not necessarily a hermeneutics text but the conclusions of a method.


----------



## Robin (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> So we have the "historical context", merged with studying grammer and sytax to gain the writer's "original intent."
> 
> Is this foolproof?



Sadly, it's not....and we need more useage of this hermaneutic in our eschatalogy discussions!

Matt, what are the distinctions between "literal" and "literalistic" useages and how can they relate the grammatic/historical? We often hear the label "literal" waved as if it were the most noble and foolproof hermaneutic in the cosmos.

Afterall, you're the Doctor....



Robin


----------



## Robin (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> That appears stretched on the strict historical method, but given the typological method (and a love for fuzziness) and the right premises, it is perfectly justified.*
> 
> -------------------------
> ...



Jacob....do we forget that God is the Author of the Greatest Story Ever Told? God - using all of humanity to tell HIS STORY? The Story is about Him - not us. (...we are dust in the wind...)

What could Jesus have explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Luke 24:27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.



Robin


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I see where you are going, but I do think it can restrict the interpretation.



It restricts it in the sense that it keeps us from inventing things that aren't really there. Better to be restricted in this sense than to be free to say whatever we want and claim it as authoritative.



> Can we see Solomon in Psalm 72 as a type of Christ?


Thank you for using this as an example because I believe that what I say here is applicable to virtually any other context. I may be mistaken, but it seems like you may have a faulty understanding of the GH method. All the GH is saying is that when you study Ps 72 you need to study it as a piece of poetry and that when the composer (Solomon) wrote it he had a definite purpose and meaning in mind. The GH prevents us from ignoring the historical context in our interpretation. Thus, based upon the original context there is no reason to see this as a "type." It is a legitimate prayer sung by Solomon concerning his reign. Now, I think that you are under the impression that the GH prohibits us from applying a passage of Scripture to another context. This prayer could be uttered by any number of kings and in so much as Jesus is of the Davidic line we can say that it applies to him. But to say that Solomon is here presented as a "type" of Christ is just us arbitrarily trying to find Jesus under every rock and tree. Sorry if this takes the "fun" out of reading the OT, but oh well.



> If Christ is the Second Adam, can we see the Church as the Restored Eve? After all, the Church is the Bride of Christ...


No. The church is never called "the restored Eve." That idea is never brought up in Scripture either. He is the second Adam in the sense that he is the Covenant head. 



> In fact, can we see Christ as:
> --the Greater Noah who takes his family onboard the ark of his church in order to save them from the flood of God´s wrath.
> 
> --the Greater Jacob who claims his birthright and limps to victory.
> ...



And here is the problem: you mention some types that are in the Bible (i.e., the rock in the wilderness) and use that as justification for a "pious imagination." If your hermeneutic is simply one of seeing everything in the OT as a type, then you have a woefully inadequate hermeneutic because you cannot read a passage of Scripture and determine its message.
For example, you reference Joseph who was sold into slavery... what is that story about? Why is it in the Hebrew canon? Do you just dismiss the whole story with a "Joseph just represents Jesus" type attitude?



> Granted, we want to avoid the "scarlet thread" approach. I agree with you that we ought to make explicit typological references, but what about implicit ones? For the record, I don't think that the scarlet thread is an implicit reference.


Why not? The typological method is inherently subjective and if "I can see it" is the basis upon which we make the claim, then it seems that you can call the scarlet cord a type of the blood of Christ if you want to. Like the allegorical method, the arbitrary subjectivity of a "typological hermeneutic" inherently undermines the notion of propositional truth and authoritative revelation. 



> If we view the Bible as one great story (not for once diminishing the theology/history of it), then it makes perfect sense to draw literary allusions/references. In fact, it is demanded, given the premises.


Does it? Is it? I repeat: the only authoritative types to be drawn are the ones given to us within Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You implicitly contradict what you're saying here (about not diminishing the history of it) when you above imply that the interpretation of Joseph, et al, is just to see it as Christ. Such a position DOES diminish the history - particularly the redemptive historical purposes - of the event.



> The reason I purport this is that the historico-grammatical method, if applied to rigidly to the scriptures, cannot appear to justify some of the Bible's conclusions.


Ah, the famous "if the apostles can do it then so can I" approach. Tell me, they also quote pagans and non-canonical sources authoritatively. Is this an option for us as well? 
The use of the OT in the NT is a very complex subject. Admittedly there are uses of the OT that appear to be totally incongruent with their original context. However, having taken a number of classes I do believe that for the most part, the historical meaning of passages is precisely what allows them to be applied to Christ in the first place. It wasn't some random "hey, Jesus was in Egypt and Micah says something about Egypt so... let's use it!" type of thing. However, (not to rock the boat) there are some things that we just don't know. For example, in Matt 2:23 it says that the prophets said "he would be called a Nazarene." Now, where does it say that? From what I've read, the conservative consensus is that Matthew was here making reference to some apparent interpretation that had arisen and not to a particular text. (For years this has posed a question and the typical response was to see this as a reference to the Nazarite vow of the OT... however, in Matt it is very clear that he is being called a Nazarene based upon his purveyance not upon any other basis. 
Anyway, I bring this up to show that a simplistic rejection of GH and favoring of a typological hermenuetic is unsatisfactory and does not solve all the riddles. It has long been known that hard cases make bad law, or you don't establish a rule based upon a few exceptional cases. In the main, the GH method is the best method for studying a particular passage and for seeing how it fits. This is especially true - without exception as far as I am concerned - at the exegetical level.
Remember, the principles of GH are so self-evident that when we do exegesis we cannot but help do it. 
One of the things that I found helpful was when I read a response to the Jesus Seminar... It was noted that they were creating their own criteria for how to treat the Bible and thus they could say "this is myth" or "this is true." It was precisely because they avoided the established principles for dealing with literature that they were able to say whatever they want to say. However, when we treat the Bible like any other book (that is, apply it to to the same set of rules and standards) then we see how truly unique and amazing the Bible is.
I am convinced that when (let's say) Paul wrote to the Ephesians that he expected them to take his words at face value. I am convinced that when Moses wrote Dueteronomy that he intended the Israelite posterity to take this at face value as an exhortation to covenant faithfulness... I could go on.
I don't truly think that you disagree with the principle that when we study a given passage we need to let the passage speak for itself, I just think that you are reacting against what Dispensationalists have done to the GH method.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Luke 24:27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
> 
> 
> ...



This is true!
Yet, at the risk of seeming to trample on "pious imaginations," let me point out what this passage is NOT saying. This verse is NOT saying that EVERYTHING in the Scriptures points to Jesus (in a prophetic or typological sense). It simply says that Jesus took them throughout the Scriptures showing them the things that DO concern him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

Ben,
I do not disagree with the GH, nor do I dichotomize the two; rather, I see typology as a facet of GH. Granted, the pious imagination thing does seem to be a problem, especially when we ask "where are the breaks to this?" However, if we apply the GH strictly then much of the apostolic use of the Scriptures is fallacious. They are making conclusions that are not supported by the premises.



> Tell me, they also quote pagans and non-canonical sources authoritatively. Is this an option for us as well?



Well, every now and then a pagan gets something right. Anyway, I think he was using an illustration.



> It wasn't some random "hey, Jesus was in Egypt and Micah says something about Egypt so... let's use it!" type of thing.



That might be a valid rebuttal, but its not what I said. Furthermore, given the strict GH, this verse appears rather odd. You could, for argument's sake, say there is much we don't know. I grant that, but that approach is not necessarily warranted at all times.

You quote the phrase "self-evident," was it self-evident to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (who did not reject a literal reading, per se but sought to incoroporate it among other readings not so literal), Origen. Granted, some of Augustine's interpreations are just plain bad, but, as you say, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Btw, I don't like the phrase self-evident: it usually rests on unexamined presuppositions.

Of course I don't disagree with the GH; remember, I said I was not dichotomizing the two. I just don't think it necessarily is the default position. I think something like what Thomas Aquinas advocated http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12599 is in need of modification and re-introduction back into the world. Then again, another good approach is the "interpretive maximalism" that could be helfpul. (alas, that would be one of the few places that I disagree with my beloved mentor, Greg Bahnsen).


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> I do not disagree with the GH, nor do I dichotomize the two; rather, I see typology as a facet of GH. Granted, the pious imagination thing does seem to be a problem, especially when we ask "where are the breaks to this?"



 




> > It wasn't some random "hey, Jesus was in Egypt and Micah says something about Egypt so... let's use it!" type of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That might be a valid rebuttal, but its not what I said.


For the record, I apologize if I made it seem that this is what you said. I was putting a ficticious thought in the mind of the Biblical writer. 



> You quote the phrase "self-evident," was it self-evident to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (who did not reject a literal reading, per se but sought to incoroporate it among other readings not so literal), Origen. Granted, some of Augustine's interpreations are just plain bad, but, as you say, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Btw, I don't like the phrase self-evident: it usually rests on unexamined presuppositions.


Well, if you look at their allegorical method, they first had to take the plain meaning and then make the jump to the allegorical. The allegorical method depends upon the literal meaning, it just says that the literal meaning is insufficient. 



> Of course I don't disagree with the GH


How can you?  Just kidding. Seriously, I appreciate your thoughts. Could it be that some methods are better suited for answering different questions?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

Thanks,
I agree, some methods are better than others in some contexts. In some ways, it is true, I was over-reacting and am still workind a few things through.


----------



## Robin (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



I think I know what you're getting at, Ben. I agree...we can't rip-out the types...but, I'd insist that all the OT revelation is about Christ - AND that the people that lived it had real lives with events and destinations that mattered to them and to history (i.e. Joseph.) So it's more like BOTH/AND with proper exegesis (Scripture interprets Scripture.) Typology is never like allegory. Literary genre distinctives are essential in understanding this. There is a bigger picture to see from where we are, looking back. Applications can be incorrectly used if we forget that the point of Scripture is the Gospel. Which is what I'll bet Christ was teaching the Emmaus disciples.



r.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...





I agree with Robin and Jacob here.

Of course typology isn't allegorizing every passage. It needs to start with looking at the basic, contextual meaning of the passage, making sure to understand it at face value, and then, if there are "types" within the story, to see them as an enhancement to that story and a marker to show how that story fits into the big story. It doesn't reduce all stories to types of Christ, but helps us see redemptive history as a series of little victories that hint at the big victory to come. I think if there are types in a particular account, this isn't the "real meaning" of the passage, but a reminder that even at this point in history, before the incarnation of Christ, God was involved in the unfolding of events and working out his plan in all his sovereignty.


----------



## Robin (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> .... God was involved in the unfolding of events and working out his plan in all his sovereignty.



What an understatement, Evie! Bravo & Bravo  And  to your post!

When we ponder God's works, power and faithfulness, (and we should reflect upon it regularly) we are to recall all the details of His accomplishments in Holy Scripture.

Our brother Moses is an example - do we forget he actually lived to see these events?!

Exodus 15

The Song of Moses
Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying,

"I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously;
the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. 
The LORD is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation;
this is my God, and I will praise him,
my father's God, and I will exalt him. 
The LORD is a man of war;
the LORD is his name. 

"Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea,
and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea. 
The floods covered them;
they went down into the depths like a stone. 
Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in power,
your right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy. 
In the greatness of your majesty you overthrow your adversaries;
you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble. 
At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up;
the floods stood up in a heap;
the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. 
The enemy said, 'I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them.
I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.' 
You blew with your wind; the sea covered them;
they sank like lead in the mighty waters. 

"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders? 
You stretched out your right hand;
the earth swallowed them. 

"You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed;
you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode. 
The peoples have heard; they tremble;
pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 
Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed;
trembling seizes the leaders of Moab;
all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 
Terror and dread fall upon them;
because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone,
till your people, O LORD, pass by,
till the people pass by whom you have purchased. 
You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain,
the place, O LORD, which you have made for your abode,
the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established. 
The LORD will reign forever and ever." 

For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. And Miriam sang to them:

"Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously;
the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea." 


Selah

r.


----------

