Roy Zuck in Basic Bible Interpretation noted that “In the Middle Ages words, phrases, and sentences in the bible had taken on multiple meanings, losing all sense of objectivity.”[1] All of the multiple meanings could not be correct. In chapter three, Zuck asked, “Whose view is valid?” All of the views are not valid.
In Hermeneutics and Homiletics: Four Views of Preaching the four different contributing authors present their hermeneutics and then refute the other views. All four hermeneutics cannot be correct. What they all agree on, however, is that the Historical/Grammatical Hermeneutic is the starting point on which they add their next level of hermeneutics. On top of the historical/grammatical hermeneutic is added
The Redemptive-Historical View
The Christiconic View
The Theocentric View
The Law-Gospel View.[2]
I contend that the correct hermeneutic is the hermeneutic all four authors have in common, which is, the historical/grammatical view. This is the view of scholars like Walter Kaiser and Daniel Block as presented in the free eBook Christ-Centered Preaching & Teaching (click to open).
Scott Gibson and Matthew Kim in their concluding summary of the Four Views, point out the strengths and weaknesses of all four views. In reference to The Law-Gospel View and the Redemptive-Historical View, they also point out the weakness of all four hermeneutics:
One might judge that the binary of law-trouble and gospel-grace is too rigid to allow Scripture to speak for itself, similar to the limitations of the other hermeneutical approaches in this book.[3] In Christ-centered preaching, [the Redemptive-Historical View] there is the risk that all sermons may sound the same and do not account for the biblical author’s intentions.[4]
This is also the view of biblical scholar, Roy Zuck, in Basic Bible Interpretation which is devoted to the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture, that is the Basic Bible Interpretation. To answer the question of what is the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture is to answer another question, “How can I understand God’s Word when I read and study the Bible?” Or “How can I grow as a Christian in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?” To answer this important question, I am going to use Roy Zuck’s Basic Bible Interpretation.
Zuck writes “When the Reformers (Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others) emphasized the need to get back to the Scriptures, they emphasized the historical, grammatical interpretation.
By ‘historical’ they meant the setting in which the Bible books were written and the circumstances involved in the writing.
By ‘grammatical’ they meant determining the meaning of the Bible by studying the words and sentences of Scripture in their normal, plain sense.”[5]
First, I am going to discuss the meaning of “historical” in the historical/grammatical hermeneutic from chapter three. Zuck went into greater detail explaining the historical interpretation in chapter four. Zuck next examined the “grammatical” interpretation in chapter five.
The Historical Interpretation of Scripture
In chapter three “Whose View is Valid?” Zuck wrote: “Each biblical writing was written by someone to specific hearers or readers in a specific historical, geographical situation for a specific purpose.” The historical interpretation involves discovering the authorial intent of the writer. “In other words what were the words conveying to their initial readers? Before we can determine their significance or relevance to us today, people who are not the original readers, we must first seek to determine what the words meant to those who originally read them.”
Zuck gave several helpful examples.
God commanded Noah to build an ark. God is not commanding the same of us today. We are not in the same historical or geographical setting as Noah.
Christ commanded the disciple not to go to any town in Samaria (Matt. 10:5) but God is not forbidding believers today to visit these towns.
Zuck gave this contemporary illustration. Suppose you decide to visit a friend unannounced. You walk up to the door and there is a note, “Come in and wait.” At first, you may be tempted to go in, but then you ask yourself, “Was this written to me?” If not, who is the note for, and what problem or situation is being addressed by the note?[6]
In chapter four, “Bridging the Cultural Gap” Zuck goes into greater detail on discovering the historical interpretation. I am going to mention one of his suggestions for learning the historical interpretation. He writes, “It is important to know the circumstances of a given Bible book.
This means looking for answers to these basic Bible study questions:
Who wrote the book?
At what time was it written/ What prompted the author to write the book? That is, what problems, situations, or needs was he addressing?
What is the book all about? [What is the theme of the book] that is, what is the main subject or subjects?
To whom was the book written? That is, who were the first readers or hearers of the book?[7]
Answering these basic Bible Study questions will enable you to discover the authorial intent and the historical interpretation of a passage. Next, Zuck taught us how to understand the grammatical interpretation of God’s Word.
The Grammatical Interpretation of Scripture
Zuck tackled this issue in chapter five, “Bridging the Grammatical Gap.” Zuck wrote: “When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, we are referring to the process of seeking to determine its meaning by ascertaining four things:
(a) The meaning of words (lexicology)
(b) The form of words (morphology)
(c) The function of words (parts of speech)
(d) The relationship of words (syntax).”[8]
The balance of the chapter is expanding on these ingredients of grammatical interpretation of God’s Word.
(a) The importance of usage or finding the meaning in the grammatical interpretation (lexicology)
When we are seeking the meaning of words, we explore the etymology, the usage, synonyms and antonyms, and contexts of the words.
“Etymology refers to the root derivation and development of words …. A biblical word should not be explained on the basis of its English etymology …. Nor does the Greek word dynamic (“power”) mean dynamite [in Romans 1:16] …. dynamite blows things up, tears things down, rips out rocks, gouges holes, destroys things. Instead dynamic means a dynamic, active, living, spiritual force.”[9]
Usage is more important than etymology or the root meaning of a word which changes over time. You can read Zuck for many examples.
Usage is a better method of discovering the meaning of a word in the passage you are preaching or teaching. The same word can have different meanings in different contexts.
One example is seen “in the New Testament word called [κλητός kletos] [which] is used at least two ways.
1) In the Synoptic Gospels, God’s ‘call’ means His invitation
2) whereas when Paul used the word to refer to God’s call, he meant God’s act of giving him a title and a commission (“called to be an apostle,” Rom. 1:1), or God’s work in giving believers salvation (8:28, 30), or God’s inviting believers with a strong urging (“called as to a holy life,” 2 Tim. 1:9).[10] How the word in your text is used is the best way to determine its meaning.
Another example is “the word sarx (“flesh”) [which can mean]
humanity (Rom 3:20)
the human body (2 Cor 12:7)
muscles of the human body (Luke 24:39)
or man’s sinful nature (Rom 8:6-7).
The importance of context in the grammatical interpretation
Usage of a word in a text is often determined by the context. So Zuck spends a lot of time on the importance of the immediate, of the paragraph or chapter, the book, parallel accounts, and the entire Bible. We are the most familiar with this aspect of the grammatical interpretation.
(b) The form of words (morphology)
The form of a word can affect interpretation. Such as the form of plural or singular. In Revelation 21:3, John refers to the residents of the New Jerusalem as “peoples” [λαοὶ laoi] plural not singular [λαὸς laos] as in 1 Peter 2:9. Peter is referring to the NT people of God the church. In Revelation 21:3, John is referring to the peoples of God which include the OT people of God, Israel, and the NT people of God, the church. Both Israel and the church will be distinct in eternity. On the twelve gates in Revelation 21:12 are the names of “the twelve tribes of Israel.” On the foundations are “the names of the twelve apostles” who represent the church on whom the church was built (Eph 2:20).
(c) The function of words (parts of speech) in the grammatical interpretation
Zuck writes “The grammatical function of a word in a phrase or sentence influences its meaning.”[9] The following parts of speech in Mark help students and preachers of God’s Word know where the author is changing from one scene and theme to the next. These are like the “therefores” and “wherefores” in the Epistles. The following parts of speech help in interpreting the Gospel of Mark.
OUTLINE OF MARK
1. THE SERVANT TO THE MULTITUDES (1:14-8:21)
2. THE SERVANT TO HIS DULL DISCIPLES (8:22-10:52)
A. First Prediction of Christ’s death (8:31-33)
B. Second Prediction of Christ’s death (9:30-37)
C. Third Prediction of Christ’s death (10:32-34)
3. THE SERVANT TO THE WORLD (11:1-16:20)
1). “and” καί plus the historical present
The use of καί [kai] “and” plus the historical present at the beginning (8:22a) καί ἔρχεται (present middle indicative “and they came”) εἰς Βηθσαϊδάν (“to Bethsaida”) and at the end (11:1) καί ὅτε ἐγγίζουσιν εἰς ἰερουσαλήμ (“now when they drew near to Jerusalem”) helps mark the end of the second section in Mark. καί alone does not mark the end of the central section [8:22-10:52] but added to the other markers helps the readers to see the beginning of the third section in Mark 11:1-16:20.
About 64 percent of the sentences in Mark begin with καί. καί joins equal items that continue with no shift, whether that is a subsequent element in the storyline, the same speaker, etc.[12] Sometimes as illustrated in 11:1 καί can mark a significant change.
2). “But” (δὲ)
In 9:32, there is a strong contrast. This time the disciples were all speechless before Jesus (οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων [oi de esiopon] “but they kept silent”). “But” (δὲ de) is more significant than καί “and” because it is less frequently used (this δὲ was also preceded three times with καὶ). Although Mark overwhelmingly prefers καί as his clausal connective, δέ is used consistently to indicate some shift in the narrative (157 times).[13] καί is used in 376 of 583 sentences in Mark. By contrast, καί joins equal items that continue with no shift, whether that is a subsequent element in the storyline, the same speaker, etc ... Mark’s proportion shows both a higher frequency of καί and a lower frequency of δέ, making his use of the less common δέ more noteworthy.
3). “again” πάλιν
In 10:32 Mark uses πάλιν [palin] (“again”) (temporal adverb) mostly to simply express repetition as “again.” Robert Decker states that πάλιν “marks a seam between two periscopes and, along with the geographical notation.”[10] In Mark 10:32, the geographic location is Mark’s first reference to Jerusalem in the second section and along with πάλιν introduces Jesus’ third prediction of his death and resurrection [10:32-45]. Randall Buth states that πάλιν is used to help link two parts together and that these parts are not events that make up a periscope or episode, but that the parts are actually episodes themselves.[11]
These parts of speech in Mark are examples of the importance of parts of speech in the grammatical interpretation of the passage you are preaching. The historical, grammatical method of interpretation is the Basic Bible Interpretation that each expositor should use in interpreting and then preaching God’s Word.
(d) The relationship of words (syntax)
Zuck writes, “According to Webster’s Dictionary ‘syntax' is ‘the way in which words are put together to form phrases, clauses, or sentences. Zuck adds, “The order of words is also a significant part of the syntax, which should not be overlooked in Bible interpretation.”[14] The following example shows the importance of putting words at the beginning of a sentence for emphasis.
We can learn to be content by depending on Christ’s strength for contentment (Phil 4:13). Paul did not depend on his strength for contentment. Paul did not say, “I can do all things!” Paul is not referring to what would become the Positive Thinking Movement espoused by progressives such as Norman Vincent Peale. I listened to one of his sermons preached in 1987 in the Crystal Cathedral entitled “Positive Thinking Works Wonder.”
Peale spoke of Mary Kroll who lived outside of Portsmouth, Ohio. Her family was poor. Her chore was to wash clothes on a scrubboard. She was about to graduate from high school. No one in her family had graduated from high school or gone to college. While doing her menial chores, she had a vision of walking up on the platform at commencement at a university to receive her diploma from the president.
The next day, her priest called her into his vestry. He said, “Mary, I have a scholarship for tuition and board for four years at Saint Mary of the Springs College in Columbus and I have been keeping it for the student in Portsmouth High School who could qualify for its high standards. When Mary walked onto the campus that fall in Columbus, it was exactly the same in specific details that she had seen in her vision.
Peale declared, that Mary had never heard of the science of positive imagery or positive thinking. She graduated with the highest marks and went on to be one of the most successful salespersons in the industry. Peale based his Positive Thinking theology on Philippians 4:13.
What did Philippians 4:13 mean according to Peale? “You can, if you think you can.” Paul promised you can only through Christ’s strength, not your mental visualization.
Norman Vincent Peale’s Positive Thinking is making a comeback. The New York Times ran an article with the headline, "The Power of Positive Thinking Reborn." The subhead read, "A New Generation is Manifesting in the Name of Wellness."[15] Manifesting is what Peale called Positive Thinking. The journalist began by talking about a young boy who at age nine had set his heart on owning the Power Ranger Flip Heads. He said, "I never told anyone, but I wanted these toys so bad. I sat in my room holding this scenario in my head of how I would feel when I got them” .... He launched his dreams into the universe .... The universe heeded his call .... ‘The very next day, my dad got me the Flip Heads. That's when I realized that there was something to this." Manifesting is the secular version of Positive Thinking among the youth today.
Paul did not say, “I can if I think I can.” Paul affirmed, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” D. A. Carson wrote that “all things” cannot be completely unqualified (e.g., jump over the moon, integrate complex mathematical equations in my head, turn sand into gold).”[16]
Here is where word order is important
Paul actually started verse 13 with “All things, I can do, through Christ who strengthens me.” Paul puts “All things” in the emphatic position because he is referring to the “all things” or all kinds of difficult circumstances in which he learned to be content in 4:11, 12. That is the context. The promise is that Christ will give us the strength to be content in the most trying trials. John MacArthur contended this only refers to the physical and not the spiritual.[17] Charles John Ellicott, however, expanded the application of the strength of Christ for believers when he wrote: “Properly, I have strength in all things, rather (according to the context) to bear than to do. But the universal extension to the maxim beyond the immediate occasion and context is not inadmissible.”[18]
The historical/grammatical method of interpretation is the most consistent method that honors authorial intent and the plain sense of language.
[1] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 98.
[2] Scott M. Gibson and Matthew D. Kim, Homiletics and Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, 2018), vii.
[3] Ibid. 160.
[4] Ibid., 161.
[5] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 77.
[6] Ibid., 64.
[7] Ibid., 78.
[8] Ibid., 100.
[9] Ibid., 103.
[10] Ibid., 104.
[10] Rodney J. Decker, Rodney J. Mark 1-8. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament, p. xxvi. Baylor University Press. Kindle Edition).
[11] Randall Buth, “Mark’s Use of Palin and Its Relationship to Discourse and Plot Analysis.” c (1976): 32.
[12] Rodney J. Decker, Mark 9-16, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament, p. xxvii. Baylor University Press. Kindle Edition).
[13] Ibid., xxxvi.
[14] Roy B. Zuck, 117, 121.
[15] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/style/self-care/how-to-manifest-2021.html
[16] D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition,) 115-116.
[17] John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Philippians (Chicago: Moody Publishers; New edition,2001, 303.
[18] Charles John Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 55.