DISPENSATIONAL HERMENEUTICS: The Grammatico

Historical Method
2005 Andy Woods
Introduction
What makes someone a dispensationalist? While many view Dispensationalism as a mere
theological system, this assessment is inaccurate. n actuality, Dispensationalism has more to do
with commitment to a particular hermeneutic then it does to adherence to a theological model. !he
Dispensational theological system arises out o" a hermeneutic rather than "rom a theology imposed
upon #cripture. !he purpose o" this paper is to descri$e this hermeneutic and e%plain how
Dispensationalism is its natural $y&product.
'irst, the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic will $e de"ined. n addition to its $asic
elements, its philosophical goals will $e e%plained. #econd, it will $e shown that the literal,
grammatical, historical hermeneutic is the same approach used in ordinary communication. n "act,
American (urisprudence rests upon this interpretive approach. !hird, it will $e esta$lished that
Dispensationalism is simply the outworking o" an application o" this interpretive approach to the
totality o" $i$lical revelation. !he historical "orces giving rise to the consistent literal approach will $e
$rie"ly e%amined.
Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology
Dei!itio!
)ost&re"ormation $i$lical interpretation employs what is called the literal, grammatical,
historical method o" interpretation. *et us $reak this phrase down into its component parts. !he
dictionary de"ines literal interpretation as that type o" interpretation that is +$ased on the actual words
in their ordinary meaning,not going $eyond the "acts.-
.
!wo concepts seem to $e in view. 'irst,
according to /am, literal interpretation encompasses the idea o" assigning to every word the same
meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking.
2
. Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary, una$ridged, 2d ed., s.v. +literal.-
2 0ernard /amm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 1d ed. 20oston3 W.A. Wilde, .4556 reprint, 7rand /apids3 0aker,
.4849, :4&42.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e * o+ *'
;ooper<s +7olden /ule o" nterpretation- incorporates such an understanding o" literalism3
When the plain sense o" #cripture makes common sense, seek no
other sense6 there"ore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual,
literal meaning unless the "acts o" the immediate conte%t, studied in light
o" related passages and a%iomatic and "undamental truths, indicate
clearly otherwise.
1
#econd, literalism resists going $eyond what is written. 0ecause literalism resists +going
$eyond the "acts,- when interpreting a given te%t, literal interpreters resist the temptation to import
"oreign ideas "rom outside the te%t. A classic e%ample o" going $eyond what the te%t says is the
ancient interpretation that the "our rivers in 7enesis 2, the )ishon, =avilah, !igris, and >uphrates,
represent the $ody, soul, spirit, and mind.
?
#uch an idea is not readily apparent "rom studying the te%t
in 7enesis 2. @ne must go outside the te%t o" 7enesis 2 and $ring into it "oreign concepts in order to
arrive at this conclusion.
t should $e noted in passing that literal interpretation has $een un"airly criticiAed on the $asis
that it adheres to a wooden, in"le%i$le literalism that "ails to allow "or types, sym$ols, "igures o"
speech, and genre distinctions.
5
#uch a straw man argumentation is easily recogniAa$le $y simply
reading how those advocating a literal hermeneutic de"ine the term literal. ;harles /yrie speci"ically
notes that literalism +,does not preclude or e%clude correct understanding o" types, illustrations,
apocalypses, and other genres within the $asic "ramework o" literal interpretation.-
5
/yrie "urther
e%plains that literal interpretation +,might also $e called plain interpretation so that no one receives
the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out "igures o" speech.-
8
/yrie $uttresses this point
$y appealing to the "ollowing Buote "rom >./. ;raven3
1 David *. ;ooper, The Worl(s ,reatest Library ,raphically Illustrate( 2*os Angeles3 0i$lical /esearch #ociety, .4809,
...
? @ne need only e%amine the works o" )hilo to "ind numerous e%amples o" such a hermeneutical methodology. )hilo,
The Wor-s o+ Philo. Co/plete an( #nabri()e(, trans. ;. D. Conge, Dew updated ed. 2)ea$ody, EA3 =endrickson,
.4419.
5 'or an e%ample o" a work that levels this charge, see D. 0rent #andy, Plowshares 0 Prunin) oo-s. !ethin-in) the
Lan)ua)e o+ Biblical Prophecy an( Apocalyptic 2Downers 7rove, *3 nter Farsity, 20029.
5 ;harles ;. /yrie, Dispensationalis/ To(ay 2;hicago3 Eoody )ress, .4559, :5.
8 $id.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e % o+ *'
!he literalist 2so called9 is not one who denies that "igurative
language, that sym$ols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny the great
spiritual truths are set "orth therein6 his position is, simply, that the
prophecies are to $e normally interpreted 2i.e., according to received laws
o" language9 as any other utterances are interpretedGthat which is
mani"estly "igurative so regarded.
:
!he a$surdity o" the notion that a literal hermeneutic "ails to encompass $asic "igures o"
speech is also illustrated $y the "act that the most e%tensive scholarly treatment o" "igures o" speech
availa$le today
4
was completed not (ust $y a dispensational literalist, $ut $y a hyper dispensationalistH
>.W. 0ullinger, the creator o" this work, was not only a literalist and a dispensationalist, $ut a hyper
dispensationalist who $elieved that the age o" the church $egan a"ter Acts 2:32:. !homas ce
o$serves, +0ullinger<s work demonstrates that literalists have at least thought a$out the use o" "igures
o" speech in a detailed and sophisticated way and do not consider such usage in con"lict with
literalism.-
.0
,ra//atical interpretation o$serves the impact that grammar plays in any given te%t. !hus,
$i$le interpreters must correctly analyAe the relationship that words, phrases, or sentences have
toward one another. #uch an analysis entails the study o" le%icology 2meaning o" words9, morphology
2"orm o" words9, parts o" speech 2"unction o" words9, and synta% 2relationship o" words9.
..
istorical
interpretation takes into account historical conte%t, setting, and circumstances in which the words o"
#cripture were written. Eilton #. !erry e%plains3
!he interpreter should, there"ore, endeavour to take himsel" "rom
the present, and to transport himsel" into the historical position o" his
author, look through his eyes, note his surroundings, "eel with his heart,
and catch his emotion. =erein we note the import o" the term grammatico&
: >./. ;raven and I.). *ange, ed., Co//entary on the oly Scriptures. !e1elation 2DC3 #cri$ner, .:829, 4: 2cited in
/yrie, Dispensationalis/ To(ay, :89.
4 >thel$ert W. 0ullinger, 2i)ures o+ Speech #se( in the Bible. E3plaine( an( Illustrate( 27rand /apids3 0aker, .45:9.
.0 !homas D. ce, +Dispensational =ermeneutics,- Issues in Dispensationalis/, Wesley /. Willis and Iohn /. Easter,
gen. eds. 2;hicago3 Eoody, .44?9, ?2.
.. /oy 0. Juck, Basic Bible Interpretation. A Practical ,ui(e to Disco1erin) Biblical Truth 2Wheaton, *3 Fictor 0ooks,
.44.9, .00.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e 4 o+ *'
historical interpretation.
.2

n essence, the literal, grammatical, historical method o" interpretation is designed to arrive at
authorial intent $y allowing the ideas plainly "ound within the te%t to speak "or themselves.
Philoso"h#
Why should $i$lical interpreters employ the literal, grammatical, historical method o"
interpretation? I. Dwight )entecost cites "our dangers when such an approach is not used.
.1
'irst and
"oremost, the authority trans"ers "rom the te%t to the interpreter. n other words, the $asic authority in
interpretation ceases to $e the #criptures, $ut rather the mind o" the interpreter. >arly church "ather
Ierome warns, +that the "aultiest style o" teaching is to corrupt the meaning o" #cripture, and to drag
its reluctant utterance to our own will, making #criptural mysteries out o" our own imagination.-
.?
'.W.
'arrar adds, +,once we start with the rule that whole passages and $ooks o" scripture say one thing
when they mean another, the reader is delivered $ound hand and "oot to the caprice o" the
interpreter.-
.5
0ernard /amm o$serves, +!he 0i$le treated allegorically $ecomes putty in the hands o"
the e%egete.-
.5
Walvoord o$serves3
t<s not too di""icult to account "or the widespread approval o" the
spiritualiAing method adopted $y many conservative theologians as well
as li$eral and /oman ;atholic e%positors. 'undamentally its charm lies in
its "le%i$ility. !he interpreter can change the literal and grammatical sense
o" #cripture to make it coincide with his own system o" interpretation.
.8
!hus, scripture $ecomes held hostage to whatever seems reasona$le to the interpreter when
the literal, grammatical, historical interpretive method is dispensed with. !he te%t $ecomes swallowed
.2 Eilton #. !erry, Biblical er/eneutics 2DC3 )hilips and =unt, .::16 reprint, 7rand /apids3 Jondervan, .4859, 21..
.1 I. Dwight )entecost5 Thin)s to Co/e. A Stu(y in Biblical Eschatolo)y 27rand /apids3 Jondervan, .45:9, 5&5. t is
instructive to note that )entecost $egins his mammoth work on eschatology with a discussion o" literal hermeneutics.
)entecost<s methodology is clear. " the interpreter applies a consistent literal approach to eschatological truths, then
the other prophetic concepts "ound in his $ook will $ecome readily apparent to the interpreter.
.? Ierome6 Kuoted $y '.W. 'arrar, istory o+ interpretation 2DC3 >.). Dutton and ;ompany, .::59, 212.
.5 $id., 21:&14.
.5 /amm, 10.
.8 Iohn Walvoord, The "illennial 6in)(o/ 27rand /apids3 Jondervan, .4549, 50.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e ' o+ *'
up in the personal theology o" the interpreter rather than allowing the one<s theology to $e $uilt "rom
the te%t.
#econd, the #cripture itsel" is not $eing interpreted. !he issue $ecomes not what 7od has
spoken $ut what the interpreter thinks. n other words, the te%t $ecomes servant to the interpreter
rather than the interpreter $eing su$servient to the te%t. !erry e%plains3
,it will $e noticed at once that its ha$it is to disregard the common
signi"ication o" words and give wing to all manner o" "anci"ul speculation. t
does not draw out the legitimate meaning o" an author<s language, $ut
"oists into it whatever the whim or "ancy o" an interpreter may desire.-
.:
!hird, one is le"t without any means $y which the conclusions o" the interpreter may $e tested.
When the o$(ective standard o" language<s common meaning is dispensed with, one man<s personal
interpretation $ecomes (ust as valid as anyone else<s. n such an environment, there is no way to
determine whose interpretation is correct $ecause there is no longer an o$(ective standard that
personal interpretations can $e compared to. 'ourth, there is no mechanism to control the
imagination o" the interpreter. /amm notes3
,to state that the principal meaning o" the 0i$le is a second&sense
meaning, and that the principle method o" interpretation is +spiritualiAing,-
is to open the door to almost uncontrolled speculation and imagination.
'or this reason we have insisted that the control in interpretation is the
literal method.
.4
!hus, literal interpretation properly constrains the dictates o" the carnal imagination $y allowing
it to roam only so "ar. @therwise, interpreters 2to $orrow the language o" the great Dew Cork (urist,
;hancellor Iames Lent9 would $e a$le to +roam at large in the trackless "ields o" their own
imaginations.- n sum, traditional ma%ims o" $i$lical interpretation have as their underlying goal the
pursuit o" authorial intent $y "irst and "oremost o$serving the ideas plainly presented in the te%t. A
related goal is to shi"t the authority in the interpretive process away "rom the su$(ectivity o" the
interpreter<s ever&vacillating imagination and $ack toward the o$(ectivity o" the static te%t. n essence,
.: Eilton #. !erry, Biblical er/eneutics 2DC3 )hilips and =unt, .::19, 22?.
.4 /amm, 55.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e 7 o+ *'
the goals o" the literal, grammatical, historical method is to dethrone the interpreter in the interpretive
process.
Similarities to Legal Interpretation
!he a$ove&descri$ed hermeneutical philosophy should come as no great surprise. t is the
same hermeneutical philosophy that is used in the everyday communication. " the a$ove&descri$ed
hermeneutic were not adhered to then everyday communication could not take place. #topping at a
stop sign, ordering "rom a menu, and paying ta%es on time could not $e accomplished i" the literal,
grammatical, historical method is dispensed with. !he literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic is
the same method that is used to decipher any sane piece o" literature.
Co!tracts a!d Other De$ices
!his same rationale also e%ists in the domain o" legal interpretation. 'or the same reasons
descri$ed a$ove, when interpreting a contract, courts "irst o" all o$serve the plain meaning o" the
contract language. 0ecause courts understand that parties have a right to enter into contractual
terms o" their own choosing, courts understand that they are not in the $usiness o" rewriting contracts
in a way that is contrary to the e%pressed wishes o" the parties. !here"ore, courts allow the authority
in the interpretive process to reside in the contract language rather than in their own opinions
regarding what the contract should or should not say. Iustice 'laherty succinctly summariAed the
philosophy $ehind literal interpretation in contract law3
,the rationale "or interpreting contractual terms in accord with the
plain meaning o" language e%pressed is multi"arious, resting in part upon
what is viewed as the appropriate role o" the courts in the interpretive
process3 !his court long ago emphasiAed that the parties have the right to
make their own contract, and it is not the "unction o" the court to re&write it,
or to give it a construction in con"lict with,the accepted and plain
meaning o" the language used,n addition to the (usti"ications "ocusing
upon the appropriate role o" the courts in the interpretive process, the
plain meaning approach to construction has $een supported as generally
$est serving the ascertainment o" the contracting parties mutual intent,n
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e 8 o+ *'
determining what the parties determined $y their contract, the law must
look to what they clearly e%pressed. ;ourts in interpreting a contract do
not assume that its language was chosen carelessly. Deither can it $e
assumed that the parties were ignorant o" the meaning o" the language
that they employed,
20
#imilarly, $ecause courts desire to honor the wishes o" the testator, they also allow authority to
rest in the testamentary document itsel" $y utiliAing a literal approach when interpreting such
documents. Eoreover, $ecause the (udiciary traditionally has not desired to trans"orm itsel" into a
super legislature, it has attempted to "ollow the plain language o" statutes whenever possi$le when
interpreting legislation.
U%S% Co!stit&tio!
0ecause (urists have traditionally not desired to amend the ;onstitution "rom the $ench, they
have typically "ollowed the plain language o" the ;onstitution<s dra"ters thus allowing authority to
a$ide in the constitutional te%t rather in their own ideological predilections. !raditional principles o"
constitutional interpretation recogniAe that the ma%im o" "ollowing the plain language o" the te%t is
indeed the $est insulation against an overly ideological (udiciary. " (urists approached these
documents any other way, they would not $e interpreting. /ather, they would $e amending and
rewriting them.
Ioseph #tory, who was )ro"essor o" *aw at =arvard *aw #chool, Associate Iustice o" the
Mnited #tates #upreme ;ourt, and the leading constitutional scholar o" the nineteenth century,
echoed these sentiments. n his in"luential Co//entaries on the Constitution 2.:119, he called "or
interpreting the constitution according to the intent o" its authors as revealed in the plain meaning o"
their language. =e noted, +!he "irst and "undamental rule in the interpretation o" all instruments, is to
construe them according to the sense o" the terms, and the intention o" the parties.-
2.
Mpon in"orming
the readers o" the pre"ace o" his commentary o" his own approach to constitutional analysis, he
indicated3
20 Iustice 'laherty6 Kuoted $y >. Allan 'arnsworth and William '. Coung, Cases an( "aterials on Contracts, 5th ed.
2West$ury, DC3 !he 'oundation )ress, nc., .4459, 501&?.
2. Ioseph #tory, Co//entaries on the Constitution o+ the #nite( Sates, 1rd ed. 20oston, .:5:9, .32:1, ?00.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e 9 o+ *'
!he reader must not e%pect to "ind in these pages any novel views
and novel constructions o" the ;onstitution. have not the am$ition to $e
the author o" any new plan o" interpreting the theory o" the ;onstitution, or
o" enlarging or narrowing its powers, $y ingenious su$tleties and learned
dou$ts,Mpon su$(ects o" government, it has always appeared to me that
metaphysical re"inements are out o" place. A constitution o" government is
addressed to the common sense o" the people, and never was designed
"or trials o" logical skill, or visionary speculation.
22
#tory also noted3
n construing the ;onstitution o" the Mnited #tates, we are in the
"irst instance to consider, what are its nature and o$(ects, its scope and
design, as apparent "rom the structure o" the instrument, viewed as a
whole and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain,
clear and determinate, they reBuire no interpretation,Where the words
admit o" two senses, each o" which is con"orma$le to general usage, that
sense is to $e adopted, which without departing "rom the literal import o"
the words, $est harmoniAes with the nature and o$(ects, the scope and
design o" the instrument.
21
#imilarly, Iohn Earshall, our nation<s third #upreme ;ourt (ustice, noted3
!o say that the intention o" the instrument must prevail6 that this
intention must $e collected "rom its words6 that its words are to $e
understood in that sense in which they are generally used $y those "or
whom the instrument was intended6 that its provisions are neither to $e
restricted into insigni"icance nor e%tended to o$(ects not comprehended in
them nor contemplated $y its "ramers, is to repeat what has $een already
22 $id., viii.
21 Ioseph #tory6 Buoted in >dwin Eeese, , Address to American 0ar Association, .4:56 adapted in +!oward a
Iurisprudence o" @riginal ntention,- Bench/ar- Fol. , no. ., 2Ianuary&'e$ruary .4:593 .0.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e : o+ *'
said more at large, and is all that can $e necessary.
24 24
!homas Ie""erson similarly o$served, +!he ;onstitution on which our Mnion rests, shall $e
administered $y me according to the sa"e and honest meaning contemplated $y the plain
understanding o" the people o" the Mnited #tates, at the time o" its adoption.-
25
Eoreover, Eilton
!erry<s a$ove&descri$ed de"inition o" historical interpretation $ears much resem$lance to !homas
Ie""erson<s admonition to return to the ;onstitution<s original intent. Ie""erson said that we must3
;arry ourselves $ack to the time when the ;onstitution was
adopted, recollect the spirit in the de$ates, and instead o" trying what
meaning may $e sBueeAed out o" the te%t, or invented against it, con"orm
to the pro$a$le one in which it was passed.
25
Although there are similarities in approach when comparing ma%ims o" legal and $i$lical
interpretation, the similarities do not end there. !he philosophy o" interpretation is also shared
$etween the two disciplines. !he underlying goal o" $oth legal and $i$lical interpretation is to trans"er
the authority away "rom the su$(ective impulses o" the interpreter and instead toward the o$(ective
standard o" the author<s meaning. Although many in today<s theological climate demean the literal,
grammatical, historical, method, it is this very method that our (udicial system and political institutions
are "ounded upon. When dispensationalists insist upon the literal, grammatical, historical method, all
they are doing is asking that the same interpretive approach routinely used in ordinary
communication and in the legal system $e applied to #cripture.
The Relationship of the Literal, Grammatical, Historical Method to
ispensationalism
Co!siste!t Literalism
What makes Dispensationalism uniBue as a theological system is not merely its emphasis
upon a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. Eany theological systems selectively incorporate
2? ;hie" Iustice Iohn Earshall in O)(en 1; Saun(ers, 5 *. >d. 505, 5?8 2.:289.
25 !homas Ie""erson6 Buoted in Iohn >idesmoe, Christianity an( the Constitution 27rand /apids3 0aker 0ook =ouse,
.4:89, 142.
25 !homas Ie""erson, Writin)s o+ Tho/as <e++erson, Al$ert 0ergh, ed. 2Washington D.;.3 !homas Ie""erson Eemorial
Association, .40?9, Fol. NF, p. ??4, in a letter "rom Ie""erson to Iustice William Iohnson on Iune .2, .:21.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e = o+ *'
this hermeneutic. /ather, Dispensationalism remains uniBue in its insistence in consistently applying
this literal hermeneutic to the totality o" $i$lical revelation. !hus, /yrie includes consistent literal
interpretation in his sine >ua non o" dispensational theology when he says, +the distinction $etween
srael and the church is $orn out o" a system o" hermeneutics that is usually called literal
interpretation.-
28
Dotice that Dispensationalism does not have as its starting point the sraelO;hurch
distinction that is then read $ack into the 0i$le. /ather it has as its starting point a consistent literal
approach to #cripture. !his approach causes the interpreter to recogniAe that srael and the church
are uniBue. /yrie is clear that the system known as Dispensationalism did not originate "rom "orcing a
theological grid upon the $i$lical te%t. /ather it arose when interpreters $ecame committed to a
consistent use o" the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. 'or e%ample, i" the same literal,
grammatical, historical hermeneutic that is used to interpret other sections o" #cripture is applied to
0i$lical prophecy, then the interpreter will naturally see a distinction $etween srael and the church.
Historical Rise o the Co!siste!t Literal A""roach
*et us $rie"ly e%amine the historical "orces giving rise to this consistent, literal approach to
#cripture. !his $rie" historical analysis will emphasiAe the legal $ackground o" the leading advocates
o" literalism. !his $ackground is important in grasping that these interpreters simply took the
hermeneutical approach necessary to interpret legal documents and applied them to #cripture.
/e"ormers Eartin *uther and Iohn ;alvin, $oth students o" the law in their "ormative educational
years,
2:
played integral roles in rescuing the church "rom the Ale%andrian allegorical method o"
interpretation that was introduced in the second century and grew to dominate the church throughout
the middle ages. *uther denounced the allegorical approach to #cripture in strong words. =e said3
+Allegories are empty speculations and as it were the scum o" =oly #cripture.- +@rigen<s allegories
are not worth so much dirt.- +!o allegoriAe is to (uggle the #cripture.- +AllegoriAing may degenerate
into a mere monkey game.- +Allegories are awkward, a$surd, inventive, o$solete, loose rags.P
24
*uther also wrote that the #criptures +are to $e retained in their simplest meaning ever possi$le, and
to $e understood in their grammatical and literal sense unless the conte%t plainly "or$ids- 2Luthers
28 ;harles ;. /yrie, Dispensationalis/. !e1ise( an( E3pan(e( 2;hicago3 Eoody )ress, .4459, ?0.
2: Alan W. 7omes, !e+or/ation 0 "o(ern Theolo)y an( istorical Theolo)y Sur1ey Course Syllabus 2*a Eirada3 0iola
0ookstore, .4449, 216 Iusto *. 7onAaleA, The Story o+ Christianity 2#an 'rancisco3 =arper ;ollins )u$lishers, .4:59,
vol. 23 52.
24 Eartin *uther6 Kuoted in 'arrar, 12:.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e *& o+ *'
Wor-s, 535049.
10

;alvin similarly re(ected allegorical interpretations. =e called them +"rivolous games- and
accused @rigen and other allegorists o" +torturing scripture, in every possi$le sense, "rom the true
sense.-
1.
;alvin wrote in the pre"ace o" his commentary on /omans +it is the "irst $usiness o" an
interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead o" attri$uting to him what we think he ought
to say.-
12

0oth re"ormers re(ected the use o" church tradition as a guide "or spiritual truth and instead
advocated returning to scripture alone or ?sola scriptura- as the source o" ;hristian $elie" and
practice. !o put this into legal terms, *uther and ;alvin re(ected the case law approach as a guide to
#cripture.
11
!he case law method places more emphasis on studying what legal authorities have said
a$out a given legal source than on studying the legal source itsel". n addition, $oth re"ormers
recogniAed the value o" knowledge o" $i$lical =e$rew and 7reek due to the "act that a return to
scripture inevita$ly reBuired knowledge o" the original languages o" #cripture.
=owever, despite their emphasis upon literally interpreting some aspects o" #cripture, *uther
and ;alvin did not go "ar enough in applying a literal hermeneutic to all areas o" divine truth.
/egarding *uther, /oy 0. Juck o$serves3
!hough *uther vehemently opposed the allegoriAing o" scripture,
he too occasionally allegoriAed. 'or instance he stated that Doah<s Ark is
an allegory o" the church. 'or *uther, 0i$le interpretation is to $e centered
in ;hrist. /ather than allegoriAing the @ld !estament, he saw ;hrist
"reBuently in the @ld !estament, o"ten $eyond what is legitimately
provided "or in proper interpretation.
1?

0ecause the re"ormers were primarily concerned with soteriological issues, they "ailed to
apply the same literal interpretation that they used to interpret soteriology to the areas o" ecclesiology
10 Eartin *uther6 Kuoted $y Juck, ?5.
1. Iohn ;alvin6 Kuoted in Juck, ?8.
12 $id.
11 Iohn >idesmoe, Christianity an( the Constitution 27rand /apids3 0aker 0ook =ouse, .4:89, ?02.
1? Juck, ?5.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e ** o+ *'
and eschatology.
#uch a selective and inconsistent application o" a literal hermeneutic was not recti"ied until the
$udding o" the dispensational movement centuries later. Dispensationalists took the literal
hermeneutic applied $y the re"ormers in the area o" soteriology and applied it to all areas o" theology,
including eschatology and ecclesiology. 0y insisting on the application o" a literal hermeneutic to all
o" #cripture, Dispensationalism, in essence, completed the hermeneutical revolution $egun $y the
re"ormers.
>mphasiAing the legal $ackground o" the early dispensationalists is important "or two reasons.
'irst, it shows that the early dispensationalists did what the re"ormers did in applying the same
hermeneutic used to interpret legal documents to $i$lical truth. !he only di""erence $etween the
re"ormers and the early dispensationalists is that they applied this method more consistently. !hey
applied it not only to soteriological issues $ut also to ecclesiology and eschatology. #econd,
according to ;harles ;lough, the legal $ackgrounds o" the early dispensationalists allowed them to
see more clearly than earlier interpreters the nature o" a contract or covenant as e%pressed in
#cripture. A ma(or ingredient o" Dispensationalism is a proper understanding o" the unconditional
nature o" the A$rahamic ;ovenant. " this covenant is unconditional and un"ul"illed, then a "uture "or
national srael remains and the church cannot $e said to have replaced srael. #omeone trained in
the realties o" contract law and with an understanding o" contract language and the "orce o" a
contract would $e more sensitive to seeing similar concepts when they occur in #cripture. ;lough
e%plains3
0oth Delson Dar$y and ;.. #co"ield studied law in their early
years, so they certainly recogniAed the hermeneutics o" contract law.
!hus, a"ter uncovering the contractual structure in the 0i$le through which
7od governs =is relationships with =is creatures, these dispensational
theologians insisted upon a strict literal and conservative interpretation o"
contractual 2covenantal9 terminology.
15

!hus, (ust as ;alvin and *uther, the two men most credited "or introducing a literal
15 ;harles ;lough, +A "eta er/eneutical ;omparison o" ;ovenant !heology and Dispensationalism,- Cha+er
Theolo)ical Se/inary <ournal 8 2April&Iune 200.93 85&88.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e *% o+ *'
hermeneutic to soteriological issues in the re"ormation era, were trained in the law, many o" the
leaders o" the dispensational movement were heavily in"luenced $y their legal training and thinking.
'or e%ample, Iohn Delson Dar$y, the man mostly credited with rediscovering the scriptural doctrine
o" the pretri$ulation rapture, planned to enter the "ield o" law a"ter graduating "rom !rinity ;ollege in
Du$lin. =e was called to the rish ;hancery 0ar in .:22. =owever, a"ter a spiritual struggle that led to
his conversion he opted to give up the law in order to $ecome a priest in the ;hurch o" >ngland.
15

Another key dispensational thinker was #ir /o$ert Anderson. !hough more recent work may
shed new light on Anderson<s prophetic calculations,
18
his work The Co/in) Prince is considered a
classic in the area o" $i$lical chronology $ecause o" its detailed e%planation o" the literal "ul"illment o"
Daniel<s prophecy o" the seventy weeks. Anderson, like Dar$y, was also heavily in"luenced $y the
legal pro"ession. A"ter receiving his law degree "rom !rinity ;ollege, Du$lin in .:51, he $ecame a
mem$er o" the rish $ar and worked drawing up legal $rie"s on a traveling circuit. =e served as chie"
o" the criminal investigative department o" the #cotland Card. A"ter retiring with distinction, he used
his investigative training and a$ility to think logically to study the #criptures.
1:

;yrus ngerson #co"ield was yet another in"luential dispensationalist who also happened to $e
a lawyer. 'ollowing the ;ivil War he studied law and received his law degree. =e then entered
politics in Lansas. )resident 7rant later appointed him to the o""ice o" District Attorney. #co"ield<s
$est&remem$ered contri$utions include his in"luence as a 0i$le teacher as well as The Sco+iel(
!e+erence Bible, which advocated a pretri$ulation rapture, a literal return o" the Iews to the
homeland, premillennialism, and Dispensationalism.
14
n sum, great hermeneutical strides have $een
made in church history when the same literal, grammatical, historical method that is used in ordinary
communication is applied to #cripture. Application o" such an interpretive approach to soteriological
issues ignited the re"ormation. Dispensationalists "inished the hermeneutical revolution $egun $y the
re"ormers $y the applying this hermeneutic to the totality o" $i$lical truth, including ecclesiology and
15 Eal ;ouch, An Intro(uction to Classical E1an)elical er/eneutics. A ,ui(e to the istory an( Practice o+ Biblical
Interpretation 27rand /apids3 Lregel, 20009, ..26 'loyd >lmore, +Dar$y, Iohn Delson,- in Dictionary o+ Pre/illennial
Theolo)y, ed. Eal ;ouch 27rand /apids3 Lregel, .4459, :2.
18 =arold W. =oehner, Chronolo)ical Aspects o+ the li+e o+ Christ 27rand /apids3 Jondervan, .4889, ..5&14.
1: Eal ;ouch, An Intro(uction to Classical E1an)elical er/eneutics. A ,ui(e to the istory an( Practice o+ Biblical
Interpretation 27rand /apids3 Lregel, 20009, ..4.
14 $id., ..4&.20.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e *4 o+ *'
eschatology.
!onclusion
!his paper has sought to e%plain the hermeneutics o" dispensationalism. 'irst, the literal,
grammatical historical hermeneutic was de"ined. n addition to its $asic elements, its philosophical
outlook was e%plained. !his outlook includes allowing meaning to $e determined "rom the te%t and
trans"erring authority "rom the interpreter to the te%t in the interpretive process. #econd, it was shown
that the literal, grammatical historical hermeneutic is the same approach used in ordinary
communication. n "act, American (urisprudence rests upon this interpretive approach. !hird, it was
esta$lished that Dispensationalism is simply the outworking o" an application o" this interpretive
approach to the totality o" $i$lical revelation. !he historical "orces giving rise to the consistent literal
approach were $rie"ly e%amined. 'ar "rom $eing the product o" reading the 0i$le through an a priori
theological grid, Dispensationalism is the product o" a consistent, literal approach to #cripture.
DISPENSATIONAL E!"ENE#TICS $ %&&' An(y Woo(s Pa)e *' o+ *'