Journal: Grace Theological Journal
Volume: GTJ 11:2 (Fall 1990)
Article: What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Interpretation and How That Differs from Spiritual Interpretation
Author: Elliott E. Johnson

---

GTJ 11:2 (Fall 90) p. 157

What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Interpretation and How That Differs from Spiritual Interpretation

Elliott E. Johnson

The subject of our dialogue focuses our attention on a fundamental difference between dispensational hermeneutics and other expressions of evangelical hermeneutics. While this is a fundamental difference, yet the difference is not at the level of principles. It is fundamental because it determines one’s view of the structure of progressive revelation and consequently influences the interpretation of many passages and the role and value of Old Testament revelation for today and for the future. Yet the differences are not basically in principle. All agree on the necessity of grammatical interpretation and historical interpretation and most agree on the legitimacy of literal interpretation and interpretation by the analogy of faith. It is rather a difference in the appropriate application of these principles. My view of appropriate use of these principles begins with and is ultimately controlled by what I think is entailed in the fact that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

This presupposition in my view of hermeneutics entails that each book of the Bible expresses a unified message and the collection of books forms a unified canon of Scripture. That unity expresses itself in the coherence of the composition of each book consistent with the norms of the appropriate literary genre. In addition, that unity expresses itself in the compatibility of truth expressed in the progressive revelation of the whole canon. So while there are changes in the meaning in the progressive unfolding of the revelation of Old Testament truths, those changes do not include alterations of the original sense or contradictions with the first expression of the truth. An original expression of a historical truth may have a limited time of application (as with the truths about animal sacrifices) and thus be replaced by a subsequent historical truth resting on the completed work of Christ. But such a replacement of an original truth does not

GTJ 11:2 (Fall 90) p. 158

alter, contradict, nor deny the original expression of truth. It merely reflects that God’s dealing with man may change as the fulfillment of God’s purposes progressively unfold.

This fundamental difference in the use of the principles became clarified in the ongoing debate between John F. Walvoord and George Eldon Ladd. The debate focused on the interpretation of Old Testament prophetic passages in their own context. In the terms of our discussion, a historical-grammatical interpretation of Old Testament is sufficient to discover God’s introductory or initial word on a p...

visitor : : uid: ()