Blog

See article one here.

Critique #1- Dispensationalism Elevates the Application of a Literal-Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic to the Same Authority of Scripture Itself 

Perhaps the most glaring issue with Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic is that its application to God’s Word is often exalted to the same authority of Scripture itself. Many Dispensationalists come to the Bible with an a priori commitment to rigidly applying a “literal-grammatical-historical” (LGH) hermeneutic to every part of Scripture in an identical manner. In his article, A Hermeneutical Evaluation of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, Abner Chou provides a thorough definition of the LGH hermeneutic from a distinctively Dispensational perspective. 

Scripture is literal in that its meaning is the author’s intent. The Scripture expresses its ideas as ‘thus says the Lord’ (Exod 4:22; Isa 7:7), ‘as the prophet says’ (Acts 7:48), and as the very communication of God (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible asserts its meaning, not whatever the reader desires, the community imposes, or what a text could denote. Rather, it is what the author said; [it is his] authorial intent. That intent is expressed through language (grammar) in light of the facts of history. The biblical writers demonstrate this in how they pay attention to words (Josh 23:14; Heb 4:1–11), phrases (Jer 26:18; Mark 1:1– 3), and even grammatical features (Gal 3:16). They have a linguistic approach to the text. Similarly, the biblical writers acknowledge the historical background of Scripture by discussing history (Deut 1:1–3:29), explaining historical backgrounds (Mark 7:1–11), as well as being aware of their place in God’s redemptive historical plan (Neh 9:1–38; Acts 13:13–41).[1]

It is important to note that there is nothing inherently wrong at a cursory level about Chou’s expressed understanding of LGH hermeneutics. Within the immediate context of the quote above, Chou accurately recognizes that non-Dispensationalists “affirm exposition, exegesis, and authorial intent. [Non-Dispensationalists] uphold literal-grammatical-historical interpretation at the core [of their hermeneutical methodology].”[2] As such, the question is not whether the Word of God should be interpreted within the parameters of its literary, historical, and grammatical features. Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists agree that considering the literary, historical, and grammatical components of a Biblical passage are crucial steps to accurately divide the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Instead, the question at hand is how should the LGH hermeneutic be applied to the totality of Scripture? Said differently, should the Bible be interpreted in the same way at every point therein? Should the application of the LGH hermeneutic function in an identical fashion regardless of the Biblical author, genre, or epochal/covenantal context? When presented with these critical questions, Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists offer strikingly different answers. 

For many Dispensationalists, the necessity of applying the LGH hermeneutic in the same way to every part of Scripture is assumed at the outset of Biblical interpretation.[3] The reasoning behind this presupposition centers upon the observation that applying the LGH hermeneutic is the standard way that human literature is interpreted in everyday life, regardless of author, genre, or historical/cultural setting.[4] In other words, before analyzing any Biblical data, Dispensationalists presuppose that the LGH hermeneutic must be applied to the entirety of Scripture—in a uniform fashion—simply because of its universal utilization to interpret ordinary literature. For example, Richard Mayhue—former Dean of The Master’s Seminary—has emphatically argued that Dispensationalists “come to the text [of Scripture] with no other pre-understanding than a consistent [literal]-grammatical-historical hermeneutic, that is employed consistently throughout the Scriptures in all realms of theology” (emphasis mine).[5] According to Mayhue’s line of reasoning, the only a priori assumption that the Biblical interpreter can possess—at the outset of the Biblical interpretation process—is that the LGH hermeneutic should be utilized consistently in the comprehensive systematization of God’s Word. Charles Ryrie likewise espouses this conviction in his popular work, Dispensationalism. 

Philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require literal interpretation. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with mankind… If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. If language is the creation of God for the purpose of conveying His message, then a theist must view that language as sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it… [Moreover], if one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. What check would there be on the variety of interpretations that man’s imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard, which the [literal-grammatical-historical interpretive] principle provides? To try to see meaning other than the normal one would result in as many interpretations as people are interpreting. Literalism is [the] logical rationale [of Biblical interpretation]… [Therefore], the Dispensationalist [uses] the normal [literal-grammatical-historical] principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.[6]

As demonstrated from these samplings of the hermeneutical presuppositions of Dispensationalism, it is clear that the Dispensationalist elevates the application of the LGH hermeneutic to the same authority of Scripture itself. While it is true that the Dispensationalist would reject this claim, in theory, all such objections are necessarily undermined by the Dispensationalist presupposing that the LGH hermeneutic must be applied identically to every part of Scripture. If Scripture is the norma normans non normata for all matters pertaining to faith and practice, then everything we could ever need to know for the Christian life—including a model of how we should interpret the Word of God—must be ascertained from Scripture alone (2 Tim. 3:16-17). To suggest otherwise is to erect an extra-Biblical standard to the level of Scripture itself, and in doing so, circumvent the absolute authority and sufficiency of God’s Word. Bearing these conclusions in mind, it is now appropriate to readdress some of the previously mentioned questions: 

• “How should the LGH hermeneutic be applied to the totality of Scripture?” 

• “Should the Bible be interpreted in the exact same way at every point therein?”

• “Should the application of the LGH hermeneutic function in an identical fashion regardless of the Biblical author, genre, or epochal/covenantal context?”

To answer these questions as briefly and cogently as possible- The Bible should be interpreted in the way that the Bible intends to be interpreted.[7] Our hermeneutic should be formed and developed by observing how Scripture interprets Scripture; by analyzing how the Biblical authors interpreted other portions of Scripture while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.[8] As such, we must apply the LGH hermeneutic to the Bible insofar that the passage being interpreted allows for us to do so.[9] We are not to force a rigid LGH hermeneutic onto the text as a mere a priori assumption. It is undoubtedly true that the LGH hermeneutic is the normal lens through which human literature is interpreted in everyday life and is applied by non-Dispensationalists when the Bible gives justification for doing so.[10] Nevertheless, it must never be forgotten that the Bible is not merely an ordinary compilation of human literature. 

While human beings indeed wrote the Bible, they were not the primary agents of revelation; God was (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Thus, typical assumptions about literary interpretation must be held in check by how Scripture unfolds from start to finish.[11] Unlike an ordinary, everyday piece of literature, God’s Word is an anthropomorphic collection of writings that communicate how He is accomplishing the redemption of His people.[12] There is not another coalition of literature that has been inspired by God in human antiquity, nor will there ever be any additional special revelation from God until the return of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2). Moreover, the Bible not only provides commentary on people, events, and circumstances from God’s perspective, but it also interprets those details in light of divinely ordained types, shadows, and prophecies.[13] So whereas there are some similarities between Scripture and other forms of human literature, there also remains a vast chasm of differences. Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists alike would do well to keep these principles in mind when contemplating the nuances of how God’s Word should be interpreted, and in doing so, allow the Biblical model for hermeneutics to govern how we should study Scripture holistically. 

---

[1]           https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2016-Article-01.pdf.

[2]           https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2016-Article-01.pdf.

[3]           https://tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2018-Article-01.pdf.

[4]           Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor Books, 1991), Pages 61-64.

[5]           https://tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2018-Article-01.pdf.

[6]http://gracebiblestudies.org/Resources/Web/www.duluthbible.org/g_f_j/The_Hermeneutics_Of_Dispensationalism1.htm.

[7]           https://rscottclark.org/2016/02/three-things-dispensational-apologists-should-stop-saying/.

[8]           Gregory K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), Pages 4-5.

[9]           Gregory K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), Pages 1-10.

[10]         Matthew Barrett, Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2020), Pages 9-11.

[11]         https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=680.

[12]         https://reformedforum.org/a-reflection-on-anthropomorphic-language/.

[13]         Gregory K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), Pages 639-648.