There are now three originalists on the Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation this week means that she will raise the court’s originalist members to one third of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are the other two judges who are in agreement with Barrett’s originalist approach to reading the Constitution. She said, “I interpret the Constitution as a law, [that] I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it… So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”1
She mentioned two important principles that all Christians should use when reading the Bible. The first is the principle of looking for the original author’s intended meaning. The second is refraining from updating its meaning to fit with a modern interpretation. Both of these principles line up with the historical-grammatical method of reading scripture, which is the way everyone should read Scripture.
The historical-grammatical hermeneutic is the common sense approach to interpreting Scripture. It is a philosophy of interpretation that says that each bible passage has one basic meaning that is grounded in both historical truth and the rules of grammar that define human language. By looking for the original author’s intended meaning we come up with a straight-forward approach to Scripture that can be applied with confidence to a person’s life.
Paul’s second letter to Timothy says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” How can someone be equipped for life if they have doubt about the meaning of Scripture? The Bible was written to guide people. It is a book of instruction. It is a book of truth. It is a manual for living.
Imagine if a farmer tried adopting a modernist philosophy to reading an old tractor manual. He might say the manual is a living document. He might say our society has evolved to a more enlightened place. But no matter what he said, he would still be a foolish. A 3/4” bolt won’t take a 1/2” wrench.
The subject matter demands a historical-grammatical approach to interpretation. The same thing is true of the Bible because the subject matter was written by a God who never changes. When he says something is right, that means it is always right. When he says something is wrong, that means it is always wrong.
Some will say the Bible is a complex book and thus it needs to be interpreted with a more nuanced approach. The historical-grammatical approach allows for this because it recognizes that there are different genres in Scripture. Poetry is written differently than prose. Apocalyptic literature is different than historical narrative. This is a much better approach than the three other main options, which include the mystical approach, the ethical approach, and the allegorical approach. The slippery slope becomes steep rather quickly if these are taken.
The apostle Paul expected Christians to stand firm in the midst of the world. This is only possible if the believer has a firm understanding of how to interpret God’s word. The historical-grammatical approach is the best foundation because it makes us look to the author’s of Scripture for guidance, not to our own preferences, and certainly not to the whims of our confused society.
And we must not forget that the original author of Scripture is God! John’s gospel says, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Talk about being originalist! Our goal is not only to understand the human author of each passage in Scripture. Our goal is to understand the divine author who loved us enough to give us his word. May we be faithful to protect the original meaning of Scripture for our generation and those to come.
