What is Biblical hermeneutics?

Dispensationalism is often associated with a ‘literal’ interpretation of Scripture, by which is meant, not that every word in the Bible is applied in an absolutely literal manner without reference to its context, but that words, verses and passages are given their natural meaning based on their immediate context as well as their wider context, which extends to the Scriptures as a whole. This is also referred to as the ‘historical-grammatical’ method. Among other things, this approach recognises that symbolical prophecies are interpreted according to the meaning of the metaphors used.

2 This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.[43]

Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency -- the strength of dispensational interpretation -- that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.[44] To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.

Our first rule must be that the Scriptures shall be our only standard of appeal, and these taken in their plain, literal meaning, without perverting or mystifying their evident signification.

There is not only a danger, but a certainty, of our wrongly interpreting Scripture if we trust to our own understanding in the study of it. There is only one Person on earth that can rightly interpret to our souls the blessed teachings of God's Word. I refer to the Holy Ghost. But He is here, amongst other reasons, for the express purpose of illuminating our souls with the knowledge of the truth. It was He who, in the first instance, indited the words of the Bible, and He can make their meaning plain to us. He is the Divine Interpreter of the Divine Book.

But the word of prophecy is of a consistent, interdependent character. No prophecy has any independent interpretation. If my interpretation does not fit perfectly with the rest of Scripture, then I am wrong. How vital it is therefore that we take Scripture itself deeply to heart, not taking a meaning to it, but bringing a meaning from it, which corresponds to the rest of Scripture.

Verse 15 is the positive antidote for the evils warned against in the verses preceding and following. Studying requires applied concentration. Yet let us carefully note it is not here with the object of gaining knowledge, but of showing oneself approved by God. To know and act upon the Word of God is the vital matter here. But one must be most diligent to discern the true application of what he reads, drawing the lines where Scripture does. Differing dispensations must be distinguished: the particular character of each book should be understood, and the way in which it relates to other books. This will take time, patience, selfjudgment, and lowly consideration, together with plodding, consistent work. But we need it if we are not to be ashamed. It is always important, in considering any Scripture, to discern the prime object of each passage, and apply the details consistently with this object. God means something when He speaks, and it is His own thoughts about the passage that we should be concerned to know.

The first principle to be got hold of is that given us by the apostle Peter, that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). It is prophecy that is in question here, not, all Scripture, as the Romanists would apply it. But also "private interpretation" is literally "its own interpretation." No single prophecy must be read alone, — as if it stood apart from the rest; but in connection with the whole plan of it in the Word. "For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man," — is not therefore the expression of the many minds of men; "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost:" — there is One perfect mind throughout it.

Now the violation of this will be found to be largely the cause of the failure of expositors. They neglect a rule which the apostle emphasizes as of first importance — "knowing this first." It is comparatively easy to find some plausible application of a single passage; it is quite another thing to make this fit with a general prophetic testimony. Comparison of passage with passage on this subject is what we are invited and compelled to therefore, if we would have truth instead of theory, realized certainty rather than conjecture. What we hold must be tested and retested by the application of similar scripture, so that at least "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word" may "be established."

It is granted that to a Christian all this may seem somewhat outside his line, and for the obvious reason that our blessings are so entirely apart from nature. It should be remembered that the Jew enjoyed natural blessings from God, whilst the Christian's blessings are supernatural. He may of course have along with his privileges in Christ external mercies; but these are not the substance of his heritage at any time. God may give or withhold them, without any mark of approval whatever. But now for us proper blessings are of a spiritual sort. It was not so with Israel. Hence clearly there was an appropriateness and force in these visitations, which is lost for the Christian; and therefore he is accordingly tempted to explain away such prophecies as these whenever he applies them to himself, which he is apt to do. Maintain their proper fulfilment in the sphere of Israel and Palestine, and there ceases all need of doing violence to scripture. One can then take all such prophecies exactly as they are. Not that this means limiting them in a servile literalism. Be assured that mere alliteration is just as wrong as allegorizing without warrant. It is a false principle of interpretation. The letter, if there be only the letter, kills. The great point is not to divorce letter from spirit, but to hold them together. We must retain the exact meaning of every word of God. We must not tie it down only to what is on the surface; we must remember that while it is the word by man, it is essentially the word of God. It may come in part through Moses, but this is none the less the word of God. Prophets were employed, but it is His word, no matter by whom it may be given.

Hence therefore to say that we must only interpret scripture like any other book is a fallacy, yea, falsehood, on the face of it. That God is pleased to convey His mind in the language of man is perfectly true; but if it flows down to me it springs from God. Unless therefore its true source and character are always maintained in view, it is impossible to interpret the word of God justly. Those who forget it will assuredly be guilty of reducing scripture to its lowest meaning, under the delusion that the least part is the whole. It is evident that this would be unworthy even in dealing with a man. For if I have to do with a person of decidedly superior parts to my own, it were a folly to suppose that my mind must be the sufficient measure of what is in his. It is natural to suppose that his capacity might conceive deeper thoughts than I have yet received, and that words which I use on a lower level might suggest if not convey more to him. With how much stronger reason this applies to the mind of God! Therefore we would do well to bear this always in memory as to scripture; for after all the true principle of interpreting God's written word must be gathered from His own account of it.

H. Surely I do. I reject entirely this mystifying of the Old Testament. There are great spiritual principles and truths which are found, and must be found, in all that divinely unfolds God's relationships with men: God's faithfulness, His mercy, His patient goodness; man's trust and integrity of heart, his humbleness, the fear of God. But when I seek the meaning of a passage, I seek simply what God meant, where it is His testimony; or in what light He seeks to put man's conduct, if it is a history of this, or what is His purpose, as a whole, in the narration. I have already spoken of the difference of encouragement or warning afforded at the time, and its passing on to give the subject its place in the general purpose of God to be accomplished in a future day. What I object to is the unintelligent and, if you please, unphilosophical irrational way of looking for the plain meaning. "The office of the interpreter is not to add another (interpretation), but to recover the original one." Now here we are entirely agreed, but then, it is added, "The meaning, that is, of the words as they struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes of those who first heard and read them." I affirm this to be in every case false, if the fine language means any thing. I have already referred to the soberer expression, "the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophets … or to the hearer or reader." Now, if I am reading or hearing a statement, I do not in any way look to the effect on the hearers. This may be a casual help, but no more. If I seek the meaning, I must seek, not the effect on others, but the intention of the speaker or writer — this as simply as you please, and nothing else. I have nothing to do with the impressions produced on hearers. There may have been none, or a false one, according to previous prejudices, or an imperfect impression; or even a right one as regards themselves, yet not taking in the full scope of what was said. If I am to believe scripture, the prophets themselves, so far from receiving a first impression and abiding by it, enquired into the sense of their own prophecies, and were taught of God that they referred, in the great topics connected with the purpose of God and deliverance, to after times. See 1 Peter 1:11-12

I believe there is no exposition of the scripture which satisfies all the conditions of the context and of the rest of the Bible but this. Who would deny that scripture must have as its ultimate force some fixed determinate meaning? There must be a true and full object for the word of God, and this is in no way adverse to the principle of applying particular passages meanwhile. This is all right, and would not be objected to for a moment; but we must distinguish between the application of scripture and its just interpretation. The latter means the full mind of God, the intention and scope whether of prophecy or of anything else. Application is justifiable according to apostolic precedent as a practical use of it before "that day."