The Grammatical-Historical-Contextual (GHC) method is the method used by many people to understand Scripture. Using the GHC method a person is said to be able to come away with the original meaning of the Scripture as the author intended. There is much in the GHC method to commend itself. There are also weaknesses in the GHC method that need to be understood when it is applied.
Grammatical Analysis
1 – Grammatical analysis includes both syntax and grammar of the original languages, in this case Greek in the New Testament and Hebrew (primarily) in the Old Testament. The semantic range of a particular word along with the context where the word is employed is used to help translate the word from the original language into the receptor’s language. This is primarily the act of translation but extends itself into analysis.
Along with this analysis the perspective of the helps materials factors into the analysis. Even when reading a word in English we bring a meaning along with us to the word. This perspective may alter the semantic range of a particular word by expanding or contracting the possible translation choices.
It may also cause us to choose a meaning within the semantic range of the word which best fits with what we think the original intent. The problem is that we may not know that with certainty. We may be picking the wrong meaning.
Historical Analysis
2 – Historical analysis involves understanding the historical background. This is clearly helpful in a lot of cases. For instance, one helpful place is in expanding idiomatic expressions where the range of the word is understood from within the historical context.
There are a lot of idiomatic expressions that are not taken literally. To tell someone that their “goose is cooked” rarely means that their water fowl has completed baking. Sorting these out can involve finding places outside the Scripture were these terms are used.
It is helpful to know more historical data about the persons or people involved in the text. Study of historical data, for instance, can tell us a great deal more about the Assyrian people than we learn from Scripture. Some of this information helps us to better understand their place on the pages of Scripture.
Historical data can often be skewed and misused. For instance, knowledge of the Old Testament temple practices is useful information in understanding the Old Testament and such New Testament books as Hebrews. The problem comes in esoteric applications. For instance, one author uses the existence of the court of the Gentiles, the outer court and the inner court as evidence that man has separate body, soul and spirit. This is a long stretch from the text.
Another example of misapplication is the exegesis of some portions of Scripture by some in the Messianic Christian movement. In this movement it can be difficult to distinguish the interpretations from the assumptions brought to the text. Much that masquerades itself as historical data is in reality theological presuppositions. The historical data is then examined in order to justify pre-conceptions. This movement is based on a hyper-Dispensational paradigm. The place of Israel, as a people of God separate from the church, forms the whole foundation of the movement. It’s adherent don’t want to be called churches, they prefer synagogues. They don’t call their leaders pastor, they call them rabbi. They are seeking to reclaim their own Jewishness but much of this is from the time after Jesus.
Contextual Analysis
3 – Contextual analysis helps us see a particular passage or phrase in the context of the chapter, book or the entire canon. This allows larger themes to be developed.
Synthesis happens when the underlying GHC work has been done. The great doctrines of the Bible, like the Trinity, do not come from one single passage but from a synthesis of the relevant data.
The Missing Fourth Category
A fourth category is also helpful. That is understanding the genre of the text. Some texts are narrative since they describe events as they took place. These are intended by the author to be historical recollections for the purpose of communicating some truth. The journey of Abram from his father’s home country to the land of Canaan is a narrative. A metaphoric use is that his journey is like the journey of faith.
Apocalyptic text also have their own distinct rules of interpretation. One is the idea that there may be some consistency in the use of imagery. The phrase in the Olivet Discourse about the son being darkened and the moon turned to blood are not describing a literal decrease in solar output and hemoglobin cells on the moon. The same phrases are used in Isaiah 13:
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
In Isaiah these phrases refer to the historical judgment against the King of Babylon. Our contemporary idiomatic expression is that “he had is lights punched out.”
This is a good way to avoid much of the speculation on eschatological themes that have resulted in so many spectacular failures in the past.
Over specification of types can result in error as well. This error is apparent in the fig tree. Some have identified the fig tree with Israel. This leads them to face a difficult issue in the narrative where Jesus curses the fig tree. Certainly there was a literal fig tree and Jesus really did curse it and it really did wither. But the problem comes in with the question of what does that mean about Israel? When Jesus says may fruit never grow on you again, if Israel is the fig tree does this mean that Israel will not come to God? This puts Jesus at odds with Paul in Rom 11.
This is Hard Work
In the end Bible interpretation is much more difficult than application of a scientific method. The Bible is a book about faith and the Holy Spirit plays a big part in enlightening the understanding of the reader. But the reader has to read and the listener has to listen.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Leave a Reply