A grammatical-historical approach to Bible reading prioritises getting to grips with the grammar and historical background of a given text in order to ascertain its meaning. This means carefully reading sentences and paragraphs, whilst at the same time being attuned to the original historical and cultural context of the human author.[1] The grammatical-historical approach is an essential tool that should be used by all responsible interpreters of Scripture.
Some more hardline proponents of the grammatical-historical method view with suspicion any other approach to the text. Indeed, in 2016 one professor from a well-known American seminary conveyed his disdain for Christocentric, typological, allegorical or redemptive-historical readings of the Bible. He posited that such hermeneutical lenses distort the intended authorial meaning of any given text. Ironically, he seemed completely unaware that his advocacy for an exclusive grammatical-historical approach to the text was its own hermeneutical lens shaped by various presuppositions.
In contrast to our American professor above, I don’t think grammatical-historical method is enough, especially when narrowly applied or to the exclusion of other methods. Our consideration of the biblical literary context—that is integral to grammatical-historical exegesis—needs to be larger than a paragraph or small literary unit. By way of illustration, photographers don’t limit themselves to a single lens. A macro lens is designed for extreme closes-ups, for example, of flowers or insects. Wide-angle lenses, on the other hand, are more often used for landscapes and have a much wider field of vision. A photographer may indeed use a macro lens for a landscape, but the chances of that picture coming out well are not exactly favourable. Similarly, any student of the Bible committed to an overly narrow deployment of the grammatical-historical approach would be akin to the photographer who determined they only needed a macro lens for their work.
Such a narrow application of the grammatical-historical method limits our understanding of Scripture in the same way that a macro lens limits our view of a landscape. It is not that the tool is unhelpful; it’s that we may need other tools to widen our view. Sometimes greater light is shed on a text by switching out our macro lens for a wide-angle lens to see what else might inform our understanding of the text in question. This is what I call a panoramic reading of the text. In this article, I offer a few examples to illustrate my point, each one extending further the horizon in view.
Panoramic Readings from the Gospel of Luke
Let me begin with the parable of the prodigal son(s) (Lk 15:11–32). A pastor could use their grammatical-historical “macro lens” to preach this text in isolation and do a perfectly commendable job: highlighting the younger son’s folly, the elder brother’s resentment, and the father’s compassion. This would all be true. But if we take out our “wide-angle lens” we may observe something else: the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin that come immediately prior both include desperate searches, something conspicuously lacking in the parable of the prodigal son (15:1–10). Read in isolation, the lack of a search does not register. But read with a more panoramic view, we are led to wonder, why there is no search for the lost son. That changes how we might read the text.
Another example, this time from the home of Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38–42). On the surface, Martha is frantically serving Jesus while Mary chills out at his feet. Upon demanding that Mary join her in busyness, Martha is gently reprimanded by Jesus:
“Martha, Martha,’ the Lord answered, ‘you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (10:41–42).
The take-away, according to our macro lens, might be that Martha, caught up in her busyness for the Lord’s sake, is losing an opportune moment for discipleship. But if we take our wide-angle lens and pull back a little further, we find that not long prior to this incident, Luke related the parable of the sower (8:1–15). There we read in Jesus’ explanation the following:
The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. (8:14)
Now, re-consider Jesus’ words to Martha, “you are worried and upset about many things”. Our wide-angle lens has informed us that Martha’s busyness is symptomatic of a much greater issue. Her performance is driven by life’s worries that risk choking out the word of life that can bring her true rest. This is why Jesus says Mary has “chosen what is better”. Busyness in ministry may, in fact, be a danger to one’s soul because it detracts from a deeper need to simply sit at the feet of Jesus and receive from him. But we only capture this meaning if we set aside our macro lens for our wide-angle lens to gain that more panoramic view of the text.
Panoramic Readings from Ruth and Proverbs
One can read Ruth with a grammatical-historical macro lens as a stand-alone story whether chapter by chapter, or in its entirety. There is, certainly, much to be gleaned. (See what I did there?) But here I want to go really big-picture and read Ruth canonically.
In certain versions of the Hebrew canon, the Book of Ruth follows Proverbs, and this is important. Proverbs is, of course, bookended by Lady Wisdom (e.g., Prov 1:20–33, 8:1–9:12) and the so-called “Proverbs 31 woman”. Most evangelicals only hear Proverbs 31 as presenting women with an unattainable standard. This, sadly, is the natural outcome of a macro-lens reading that only considers the immediate context. But if we take Proverbs’ bookends seriously, I think we can say with confidence that the “wife of noble character” in chapter 31 should be equated with Lady Wisdom whom the son has been exhorted to pursue and embrace throughout the book. If that’s the case, then even men should be exhorted to embody the character of the Proverbs 31 woman.
If the Book of Ruth follows Proverbs, its titular character should be understood as the embodiment of that Proverbs 31 woman. I’d go further, to suggest that Boaz is the embodiment of the wise son who pursues Lady Wisdom and ultimately marries her! In fact, Boaz embodies the same characteristics as Ruth in this case. Finally, we might also see the anonymous guardian-redeemer in Ruth 4 as the embodiment of the faithless son who pursues Dame Folly to his detriment.
The Book of Judges
A somewhat common reading of Deborah’s ministry and interaction with Barak was articulated by Pastor Gabe Hughes on Twitter as follows:
Deborah was appointed by God as a prophetess and a judge at a particular time to embarrass the men of Israel. A woman as godly as Deborah in the church today would be in submission to her husband (Judges 4:4) and the men who teach (1 Corinthians 14:33–35).
Sticking to his macro lens in the exchange linked above, Pastor Gabe later highlights Judges 4:8–9 to suggest that a faithful exegesis of the text understands that the honour given Jael for killing Israel’s enemy implies shame for Barak and the men of Israel.
I want to go with an ultra-wide-angle lens (one that involves Exodus and the New Testament) that I think reveals a better way of understanding Judges 4. To my mind this chapter has often been misrepresented in evangelical circles. First, note Barak’s appearance in Hebrews 11:32. If Deborah’s ministry was to humiliate Barak and the men of Israel, why is Barak honoured for his faith?
Second, in Exodus we read this exchange:
The LORD replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up … How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us?” (Exodus 33:14–16)
Now compare Barak’s words to Deborah with those of Moses to the LORD:
Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.” (Judges 4:8)
Do you see how Barak channels the posture of Moses here? Moses won’t go if God’s presence won’t go with the people. Similarly, Barak, in asking Deborah to go with him, is asking the woman who brings God’s word to his people to join Israel’s army as reminder of God’s presence with his people. Moreover, Barak obeys Deborah the prophetess in going out to battle, which is to say, his obedience to Deborah is his obedience to God’s word through her. And that is why he appears in Hebrews’ “hall of faith”. His concern is not for glory (as suggested by Pastor Gabe), but obedience to God’s word which often goes without glory.
In contrast to Pastor Gabe’s macro-lens reading, the beauty of a more panoramic reading of Judges 4 with the help of Hebrews and Exodus is that it avoids minimising Deborah’s ministry to the mere humiliation of Israel’s men; and the dismissal of Barak and Israel’s men as cowards when, in fact, they obey God’s word through Deborah, thus demonstrating faith in the LORD.
In concluding, I am again at pains to say that I am not against a close grammatical-historical reading of the Bible. It is good and necessary. But to apply this approach myopically as your only tool when other options are available to you—panoramic options that allow you to pursue broader avenues of inquiry and unearth more fruitful insights (as I hope I’ve demonstrated above)—is, frankly, a dereliction of exegetical duty.
[1] See Michael Lawrence, Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church: A Guide for Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 41–44, for a brief summary.
