Position paper

Sanghui Lee
The hermeneutics that I assent is grammatical historical hermeneutics. I believe this is

also what Abner Chou also introduces in his book, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers. He

calls his hermeneutics Christian hermeneutics. So I am fine with using that term as well. This

hermeneutics is not a novel, strange hermeneutics. Chou drew this hermeneutics out from the one

that the prophets and apostles used. So it is Scripture-driven hermeneutics.

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics, as the name indicates, is based on two aspects:

grammar and history. The grammatical aspect of this hermeneutics refers to current

comprehension of the sentence in a direct, ordinary, literal manner. In this hermeneutics, an

exegete will do deeper lexical and syntactical study, considering the text’s literary context, type.

This will help the exegete to induce the most literal meaning out of the text.

At the same time, the history aspect of this hermeneutics requires a careful consideration

of the time and circumstances where the author was writing. This gives the exegete a more

concrete background information such as the authorship, the date, place, the recipients of the

book. This is a important process where the exegete gets familiar not just with the historical facts

but also culture and geography reflected in the text.

When these two aspects are well put together, grammatical historical hermeneutics

functions as a powerful to interpret the text. Through this hermeneutics, words and sentences are

studied in a proper way according to grammatical, literary structures as the historical context is

considered as well. Most importantly, it enables the exegete to discern the meaning of the text

most correctly, which will be discussed below.

Authorial intent

1
 The primary characteristic of grammatical historical hermeneutics is its presupposition on

the authorial intent. It presupposes there is author’s original intent that can be traced by readers.

When readers understand the intent, it is the same thing as they understand the meaning of the

text. “Meaning” refers to the content of a communication which a writer (or speaker) consciously

willed to convey by the words and grammar he used. Since the meaning of a text is what the

author intended the text to say, the text has only one meaning, which is the author’s This is very

important concept of grammatical historical hermeneutics. It’s because the single intent of the

text assures that the meaning of a biblical text does not change depending on a interpreter,

culture or generation. Readers can be assured that the meaning of the text remains constant,

objective, stable, rooted in time.

What is so wrong to find multiple meanings in the text? It is very wrong because it brings

chaotic subjectivity. If there are multiple meanings in the text, then hermeneutics doesn’t mean

anything. Any conjecture or guess would be enough to find out meaning in the text. Regarding

these multiple meanings, one might be confused with significance. This is another point that

grammatical-historical hermeneutics makes sure to clarify.

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics differentiates meaning and significance.

Significance is the relationship between a reader and a text. A reader perceives connection

between a text’s single meaning and some other issue or context. Thus, while meaning is single

and immutable, significance can be flexible and change from reader to reader and from culture to

culture. If an exegete confuses the meaning of the text and the significance for the lives of

contemporary Christians, a very awkward application can be induced form the text. For example,

from Genesis 17:10-12, one might conclude that even today every male believer should be

circumcised.

2
 This author’s intention is also sometimes misunderstood under the name of dual

authorship. It is argued that there is a separation or gap between human meaning and divine

meaning. Thus, there should be embedded or hidden divine meaning beyond what the human OT

authors intended in their texts. This is called ‘sensus plenior,’ meaning ‘fuller meaning.’

However, this is not what grammatical-historical hermeneutics promotes. God does not hide

meanings in a text that is decoded later. If there is a hidden divine meaning in any text, it

indicates there should be unnecessary subjectivity in interpretation.

Also, it distorts the meaning and significance of inspiration. When God inspires human

writers to pen the Scripture, he prepares them. Then he can use their individual personality,

language, style and even their historical context. Through this process, he intends them to write

what God wants them to write at hand. Thus, the intent of the human author is equal to God’s. If

God had wanted to indicate more than one intention, he would have done so by writing other

passages. It is hard to understand that God would bother to squeeze hidden meanings in a

passage, which is not the way God inspired human writers.

Then one might wonder what about the things that were revealed in the NT times and

were not known by OT people? Isn’t this kind of giving a room for sensus plenior? It is not.

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics holds that God gives later revelation that harmonizes

earlier revelation. This is explained in terms of progressive revelation. God revealed his truth

progressively through eras of human history. In this process, later revelation does not contradict

with the earlier. Rather, subsequent revelation is built upon and added to antecedent revelation.

But as a God who is eternal and unchanging, this progressive revelation never changes or

corrects previous revelation. Thus, it is true the Old Testament authors understood the meaning

of what they wrote but they did not comprehend all the implications and significances of what

3
they wrote. However, God understands the meaning of what the OT authors wrote and all the

implications and significances of what they wrote.

It seems other hermeneutics do not capture the concept of progressive revelation

correctly. Hence they cause a strong discontinuity between two testaments. Robert Thomas, who

offers an approach called Inspired Sensus Plenior Application states, “The New Testament

writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament

passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they were

making.”1 However, there is no biblical evidence that the main thrust of grammatical-historical

meaning of the OT is disregarded. In fact, as Chou argues, ‘directionality’ is found in the

hermeneutics of the prophets. The prophets knew their place in redemptive history and where it

is generally going. So their writings are intentionally set up for the future. So there is continuity

between the two testaments. It indicates the prophetic hermeneutics is well aligned with

grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

Intertextuality

This is a strong point of grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It aptly pays attention to

intertextuality throughout Scripture. Intertextuality is how to map redemptive history and to read

Scripture in light of precious revelation. It provides a guide for biblical writers to understand

history as well as the literary context, phrases, and words of Scripture. This is more than cross-

referencing in a sense that it helps readers to see the wholistic context of different texts. One can

gain more precise understanding of texts with intertextuality because the prophets and apostles

1
Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: the New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2002), 247.

4
read and wrote in light of various passages. With those external texts, the writers can gain

additional theological ideas and even learn an embedded rationale between texts.

This intertextuality is closely related to the issue of New Testament use of the Old

Testament. If a reader uses a hermeneutics in a way that the relationship between the OT and

NT, any quotations from the OT that the NT writers are only confusing. There are many views in

understanding on NT use of the OT. One of them is an approach called ‘Canonical

Interpretation.’ This approach holds that later passages of the canon should inform what earlier

passages meant. This sounds right and is liked by many today. However, as mentioned above,

this approach has the same weakness, namely that the original writers are unaware of true

meanings of the text. Again, any concept of interpretation that tries to suggest ‘extra meaning,’

‘think meaning’ cannot supported by sound hermeneutics.

What I believe is Michael Vlach’s view:

In sum, I believe the NT writers and persons consistently quoted and used the OT

in a contextual manner. Whether by explaining the meaning of an OT passage, or

drawing implications or significances from an OT text, the NT persons and

authors quote the OT in ways consistent with the original meanings of the OT

authors.2

As Vlach state, when the OT is used in the NT, it should be interpreted in a consistent

manner. There should be no artificial interpretation that denies intertextuality of the Scripture. In

this approach, contexts of texts are well considered. Also, meanings and significances can be

discerned by applying grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

2
Michael J. Vlach, The Old in the New: Understanding How the New Testament Authors Quoted the Old
Testament (The Woodlands, TX: Kress, 2021), 61.

5
 Let me explain this with an example. In the OT, one of the prominent themes is ‘kingdom

of God’ This theme also flows through the NT as well. It is observed that kingdom is mentioned

repeatedly throughout the Scripture. Now, when the kingdom of God is mentioned in NT, is what

God means by kingdom different from the OT? It is not. Based on the covenants in the OT, the

prophets during the captivity, foretold of the kingdom under the Messiah in the latter days (Isa

2:2–4). These prophecies gave Messianic hope that the rule of God over His creation is fully

reestablished by the Messiah and He would bring physical and material prosperity for Israel and

the nations.

Now, the era of the New Testament dawned. Jesus started His earthly ministry by

proclaiming the kingdom of heaven. Through grammatical-historical hermeneutics, it is

concluded that with the coming of Jesus the expectation of the OT is literally maintained. The

lexical study of the kingdom of God indicates that ‘kingdom’ is basically an OT concept that is

anticipated by the Jews. Also, the circumstance of the texts where kingdom of God is mentioned

shows the kingdom of God is not a different subject from the OT but it is something that will be

established soon as Jesus’ second coming. Jesus says the kingdom of God is at hand, referring to

its imminence. At the same time, he did not mention any new meaning of the kingdom of God,

which would have subverted Jewish expectations. Other hermeneutics would say the NT

reinterprets, spiritualizes, transforms what has been prophesized in the OT. This would suggest

then Jesus’ hermeneutics is wrong. Thus, grammatical-historical hermeneutics, considering

intertextuality, helps exegetes understand the concept of the kingdom correctly.

In conclusion, grammatical-historical hermeneutics is the most sound hermeneutics in a

sense that it captures the authorial intent best, not confusing meaning with significance nor with

sensus plenior. Also, it understands best the nature of intertextuality. It does not allow illogical

6
discontinuity between the two testaments and implements the best approach to the OT quotations

in the NT.