The Historical-Grammatical Method Begins With the Nature of Scripture

The historical-grammatical method begins with the conviction that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, not merely an anthology of human religious reflections that later communities invested with spiritual significance. Scripture itself provides this starting point when 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All Scripture is inspired by God,” establishing divine origin as fundamental to the interpreter’s approach to the biblical text. Likewise, 2 Peter 1:20-21 explains that prophecy did not originate from a prophet’s own impulse but that men “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” which means that divine inspiration operated through identifiable human authors using actual human languages. The historical-grammatical interpreter therefore takes seriously both sides of biblical authorship: Jehovah is the ultimate source of Scripture, while Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul, Peter, John, and the other writers communicated through their own vocabulary, grammar, historical circumstances, literary forms, and purposes. This immediately rules out an interpretive method that treats the words merely as raw material from which the modern reader can construct new meanings, because the words were selected to communicate definite meaning rather than to invite unlimited reinterpretation. The written text is consequently the interpreter’s controlling authority, and the task of interpretation is to discover what the inspired author communicated through that text rather than to assign meanings that were never placed there. Nehemiah 8:8 provides an excellent biblical model because the Law was read clearly, its sense was explained, and the people were helped to understand what had already been written rather than being encouraged to create meanings of their own. Jesus likewise treated Scripture as authoritative written revelation when He repeatedly appealed to what “is written,” as in Matthew 4:4, 4:7, and 4:10, grounding His responses in the established meaning of the biblical text rather than in private impressions. Thus, faithful interpretation begins not with the creativity of the interpreter but with submission to the words Jehovah caused to be recorded through His Spirit-directed human authors.

Authorial Intent Establishes the Meaning of the Text

The historical-grammatical method seeks the meaning intended by the biblical author as that meaning is expressed in the inspired text, and this commitment provides one of the strongest safeguards against subjective interpretation. A text cannot legitimately mean whatever a later reader wishes it to mean, because meaningful communication requires an author who uses words and grammatical relationships to convey recognizable ideas to an audience. Luke explicitly illustrates this principle in Luke 1:1-4, where he explains that he investigated matters carefully and wrote an orderly account so that Theophilus could know the certainty of the things he had been taught. Luke therefore had an identifiable communicative purpose, and interpreting his Gospel requires discovering that purpose through the words, structure, historical references, and narrative arrangement he actually employed. Paul likewise constructed arguments in his letters through carefully ordered propositions, contrasts, conjunctions, commands, explanations, and conclusions, so one cannot legitimately detach an individual Pauline sentence from the argument surrounding it and assign that sentence an unrelated theological meaning. The principle of authorial intent also means that Scripture possesses objective meaning before the modern reader approaches it, because the reader discovers meaning rather than manufacturing it. Application may differ from one circumstance to another, but application must arise from the meaning already present in the passage, since an application that contradicts the author’s meaning is not a legitimate application of Scripture. This distinction is particularly important when readers ask, “What does this passage mean to me?” because the primary question must first be, “What did the inspired author communicate by these words in their context?” Only after that meaning has been established can the interpreter responsibly determine how the passage instructs Christians living in different historical and cultural circumstances.

The Historical Setting Controls Interpretation Rather Than Replacing It

The word “historical” in historical-grammatical interpretation refers to the interpreter’s responsibility to understand the real historical circumstances in which biblical communication occurred. Biblical writers did not write in an abstract world detached from geography, rulers, customs, conflicts, covenant arrangements, languages, and specific audiences, so those historical realities often clarify exactly what their words communicated. Daniel, for example, must be read within the historical realities of Babylonian and Medo-Persian domination, because Daniel Chapters 1–6 describe genuine rulers, decrees, court circumstances, imperial claims, and conflicts involving faithful service to Jehovah. The historical setting does not reduce Daniel to ordinary political literature; rather, it enables the interpreter to understand the inspired message as revelation given through a real prophet living under actual Gentile empires. Similarly, Zechariah ministered within the postexilic situation in which the returned Jews were rebuilding the temple, Jerusalem remained weakened, and the community required repentance, encouragement, and confidence in Jehovah’s promises. Reading Zechariah without that setting would invite the interpreter to detach prophetic language from the circumstances to which Jehovah originally directed it and then freely attach the words to unrelated modern events. The historical-grammatical method therefore studies chronology, geography, political circumstances, ancient customs, covenant relationships, and audience conditions whenever those matters illuminate what the author communicated. Such historical study serves the inspired text rather than sitting in judgment over it, since the goal is to recover the world in which the biblical words functioned rather than to reconstruct an alternative history that contradicts the testimony of Scripture. The result is interpretation anchored simultaneously in revelation and history, because the God who inspired Scripture acted and spoke within real human history rather than through ahistorical myths or detached religious abstractions.

Grammar and Syntax Preserve the Author’s Actual Communication

The grammatical component of historical-grammatical interpretation requires close attention to the way words function together in clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and larger arguments. Words possess ranges of possible meaning, but the writer’s grammar and context restrict those possibilities so that a word used in one passage cannot automatically be assigned every meaning found in a lexicon. Verbal tense and aspect, grammatical case, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, modifiers, word order, subordinate clauses, and syntactical relationships all contribute to what an inspired writer actually communicated. This is one reason careful interpretation must go beyond collecting dictionary definitions, because a lexicon provides possible senses while the sentence and context determine which sense is functioning in a specific passage. Even a familiar word such as “faith” cannot be interpreted merely by assembling every conceivable meaning associated with Greek pistis and then importing the entire collection into each occurrence. The interpreter must examine who is speaking, what issue is being discussed, what words surround the term, how the sentence functions within the author’s argument, and whether the same writer develops the concept elsewhere. Paul’s tightly reasoned presentation in Romans demonstrates why this matters, because theological statements often depend on logical connections expressed through grammatical relationships between propositions rather than on isolated theological terms. The historical-grammatical approach consequently respects inspiration at the verbal level, recognizing that the Holy Spirit did not inspire disconnected concepts while leaving the words insignificant but communicated revelation through meaningful human-language expressions. Accuracy therefore demands that the interpreter follow the wording and structure of the text rather than replacing the biblical writer’s grammatical communication with a theological idea imported from somewhere else.

Context Protects Scripture From Word Snatching and Proof-Texting

Context is among the most important controls upon biblical interpretation because words and sentences derive their specific force from the literary environment in which the author placed them. A verse removed from its paragraph can easily be made to support a proposition that its writer never intended, especially when the reader notices a familiar word and ignores the argument surrounding it. Sound interpretation therefore moves outward from the immediate clause to the sentence, paragraph, section, book, and finally the broader canonical context while preserving the author’s own line of thought at every stage. Matthew 4:4, for example, cannot responsibly be treated merely as a detached statement concerning bread, because Jesus is responding to Satan by citing Deuteronomy and affirming man’s dependence upon what proceeds from Jehovah. Romans 8 must likewise be interpreted within Paul’s developing argument concerning sin, Christ, Christian obligation, the Spirit-directed Word, suffering, resurrection hope, and the believer’s relationship with God rather than as a collection of independent slogans. Understanding Biblical Words warns particularly against isolating a Hebrew or Greek term from its setting and then turning one possible dictionary meaning into the meaning of every occurrence. Such a practice confuses the semantic range of a word with its contextual sense, just as the English word “run” has different meanings in the expressions “run a race,” “run a business,” and “run water” even though the spelling remains unchanged. Biblical word study therefore requires disciplined attention to immediate syntax, discourse, historical circumstances, and the author’s broader usage rather than dependence upon etymology or a preferred theological definition. The interpreter who observes context is practicing exegesis by drawing meaning from the text, whereas the interpreter who brings a preferred doctrine to an isolated word and forces that doctrine into the verse has crossed into eisegesis.

Literary Genre Determines How Language Functions

The historical-grammatical method is frequently misunderstood as though it demanded wooden literalism in which every biblical expression must be interpreted with the same literary expectations, but such a procedure would actually violate the method. Historical-grammatical interpretation recognizes narrative, law, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, parable, idiom, hyperbole, apocalyptic material, and epistolary argument because the inspired writers used different literary forms to communicate different kinds of material. Biblical narrative ordinarily presents events as events, so passages concerning Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, or Paul should not be transformed into allegories merely because an interpreter wishes to find concealed spiritual meanings beneath the historical account. Poetry, however, regularly employs imagery, parallelism, metaphor, and intensified language, and therefore a poetic figure should not be flattened into wooden prose when its literary form clearly identifies it as figurative expression. Jesus’ parables must similarly be interpreted as purposeful stories that communicate specific truths rather than as literal agricultural or commercial instructions simply because fields, seeds, merchants, coins, or vineyards appear in the narrative. Matthew 13 is an obvious example because Jesus used recognizable scenes from ordinary life to communicate truths concerning the kingdom, reception of the message, judgment, and responsibility. Paul’s epistles require another kind of attention because passages such as Romans 3:21-26 develop theology through sustained reasoning, and the interpreter must follow the logical argument rather than treating the passage as poetry or symbolic narrative. Revelation requires careful recognition of its prophetic and symbolic character, yet its symbols are not permission for uncontrolled imagination because they remain governed by textual explanation, Old Testament background, grammar, immediate context, and the book’s own literary structure. Genre therefore protects literal interpretation rather than contradicting it, because properly understood literal interpretation means reading a text according to the kind of communication its inspired author actually employed.

Scripture Must Interpret Scripture Without Inventing Hidden Meanings

The unity of Scripture permits clearer passages to illuminate more difficult passages, but that principle must never become an excuse for importing meanings into a text that its author did not communicate. Because the same divine source stands behind the whole canon, genuine biblical teachings will harmonize rather than contradict one another, and interpreters should compare related passages while respecting each passage in its own grammatical and historical context. This means that one should not begin with a later verse, carry every element of that verse backward into an earlier passage, and then claim that the earlier writer secretly communicated everything found in the later revelation. The inspired New Testament writers possessed authority that modern interpreters do not possess, and when an inspired writer applied an Old Testament passage in a way extending beyond its original historical-grammatical meaning, that inspired application does not grant later readers permission to invent comparable meanings. The uploaded discussion of New Testament use of the Old Testament specifically warns that contemporary interpreters cannot bypass grammatical-historical interpretation merely because an apostle, writing under inspiration, made an authoritative application of an earlier text. The interpreter today remains bound to establish the original author’s meaning first and then to recognize any additional inspired application only because Scripture itself identifies that application. This protects passages from uncontrolled typology in which nearly every Old Testament person, object, event, measurement, color, number, journey, or institution is assigned a hidden Christian meaning without textual authorization. It also protects the canonical unity of Scripture, because harmony is established by comparing what the texts genuinely teach rather than by manipulating earlier passages until they resemble later doctrines. “Scripture interprets Scripture” therefore means that the inspired canon mutually clarifies its teaching while the interpreter remains responsible to the grammatical and historical meaning of each passage considered on its own terms.

The Historical-Grammatical Method Rejects Allegorical Freedom

Allegorical interpretation becomes dangerous when the interpreter assumes that the obvious grammatical-historical meaning is merely a surface beneath which a deeper and more important spiritual message must be discovered. Such an approach transfers interpretive authority from the inspired writer to the imagination of the later reader because there is no objective textual control determining which hidden correspondence should be accepted and which should be rejected. A historical person can then become an abstract virtue, a city can become an inward spiritual condition, a river can become a theological system, and an ordinary narrative detail can be transformed into almost any doctrine the interpreter wishes to teach. The historical-grammatical method rejects this procedure because the inspired author’s words already communicate the meaning the interpreter is responsible to discover. When Scripture itself identifies a literary figure, symbolic vision, parable, or inspired comparison, the interpreter should follow that identification precisely because the textual evidence warrants it. When no such indication exists, however, an interpreter has no authority to manufacture hidden correspondences under the claim of spiritual insight. This distinction is particularly significant in prophetic books such as Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Revelation, where genuine symbols occur but where those symbols exist within defined literary, historical, and grammatical contexts. Daniel’s beasts, Revelation’s lampstands, and Zechariah’s visions are not interpreted by denying symbolism; they are interpreted by allowing inspired explanations, contextual relationships, and previous biblical usage to control what the symbolism conveys. Historical-grammatical interpretation therefore avoids both extremes: it neither denies figurative language nor turns every literal narrative into a container for meanings that originated in the interpreter rather than in the inspired text.

The Holy Spirit Inspired the Text Rather Than New Interpretations

The role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation must be defined by Scripture rather than by claims that the Spirit supplies new meanings independently of the written Word. The Holy Spirit carried along the biblical writers according to 2 Peter 1:21, and the resulting Scriptures are therefore the objective, Spirit-inspired revelation that Christians possess and study. The interpreter does not become newly inspired when reading Paul, Peter, John, Moses, or Isaiah, and no inward impression possesses authority equal to the text Jehovah caused those writers to record. This distinction prevents a person from defending an interpretation merely by claiming that the Spirit revealed it to him, because interpretations must be demonstrated from vocabulary, grammar, syntax, context, historical setting, literary form, and canonical teaching. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans because they examined the Scriptures carefully to determine whether the message they were hearing agreed with the written revelation, providing a model of verification rather than dependence upon unexamined spiritual impressions. Likewise, 2 Timothy 2:15 instructs the Christian worker to handle “the word of truth” correctly, placing responsibility upon careful treatment of the objective Word rather than upon receiving additional revelation. The Spirit’s work in producing Scripture therefore magnifies the necessity of disciplined study, because the Spirit-inspired words deserve more careful attention, not less. A reader who ignores grammar and historical context while appealing to spiritual insight is not honoring the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit chose to communicate through precisely those grammatical and historical means. Christian guidance consequently rests upon Jehovah’s Spirit-inspired Word, and faithful interpretation requires allowing that Word to shape thought, belief, conduct, worship, and teaching without supplementing it with claims of new inspired meanings.

Historical-Grammatical Interpretation Is Not Historical-Critical Interpretation

The similarity of the terms “historical-grammatical” and “historical-critical” sometimes conceals the profound methodological difference between them, but the uploaded treatment of biblical criticism distinguishes the approaches at their foundations. The historical-grammatical method accepts the supernatural worldview presented by Scripture and approaches the biblical writings as truthful revelation communicated through real historical circumstances and ordinary linguistic means. Historical-critical approaches developed under intellectual movements that regularly subjected Scripture to philosophical assumptions concerning what history can contain, including assumptions that exclude or question supernatural divine intervention before individual passages are even examined. Such presuppositions inevitably affect conclusions concerning prophecy, miracles, authorship, predictive revelation, and the resurrection because the interpreter’s controlling framework begins outside the biblical text. The historical-grammatical interpreter instead studies what an author actually asserts and does not automatically reinterpret supernatural claims into natural events merely because modern philosophical commitments find miracles unacceptable. Matthew’s record of Jesus walking on the sea in Matthew 14:22-33 is therefore treated as historical narrative reporting an actual miracle, not as a community legend whose religious significance must be separated from questions of factual occurrence. Luke’s resurrection narrative in Luke 24:36-43 likewise communicates an event the author presents as historical, including Jesus’ interaction with His disciples following His resurrection, and the interpreter is not free to redefine the account as an existential symbol of continuing hope. The historical-grammatical method is consequently inductive in the proper sense that it observes the words, grammar, context, literary form, and historical claims of the passage and allows those textual features to determine the interpretation. Historical-critical theories that require Scripture to conform to assumptions formed independently of its own claims reverse that order by permitting the external framework to control what the text may be allowed to mean.

The Plain Meaning Must Be Distinguished From Simplistic Reading

Historical-grammatical interpretation is often called the plain, normal, or literal method, but “plain” does not mean that every passage can be interpreted correctly after a hurried reading without attention to language or context. The plain sense is the sense produced by the normal rules of communication that governed the biblical author’s words, which includes recognition of figures of speech, idioms, historical conventions, literary structures, and specialized vocabulary. When Psalmic poetry speaks of mountains singing or rivers clapping their hands, ordinary linguistic competence recognizes personification rather than concluding that literal mountains possess voices or literal rivers possess hands. When Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:29-30 about drastic action against what causes sin, the interpreter must recognize the force of deliberate overstatement rather than using the passage to justify physical injury, because genre, rhetoric, and the broader teaching of Scripture control the sense. Likewise, when Jesus says in John 10:9, “I am the door,” the statement is plainly metaphorical because neither grammar nor context presents Him as a literal architectural object. The historical-grammatical method therefore refuses the false choice between literal interpretation and recognition of figures of speech, since a metaphor is interpreted literally when it is recognized as the metaphor the author intended. The same principle applies to prophecy, where symbolic language must be identified from textual evidence rather than either literalized mechanically or spiritualized without limits. Sound interpretation consequently demands patient study because the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek across differing periods, cultures, genres, and circumstances, even though its central teachings remain understandable to ordinary readers who approach the text responsibly. “Plain meaning” is therefore not permission for careless reading but a commitment to receive the biblical author’s communication according to the ordinary linguistic and literary conventions by which that communication was given.

Accurate Translation Supports Accurate Interpretation

Historical-grammatical interpretation also depends upon access to a translation that represents the wording, grammatical relationships, and distinctions of the original text as accurately as English permits. A translator inevitably makes linguistic decisions because Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English do not share identical syntax, idioms, word order, or lexical ranges, yet the translator’s responsibility is to transfer the source text rather than silently replace it with an interpretation. The Updated American Standard Version states this philosophy explicitly by prioritizing fidelity to the original-language words while using proper English grammar and syntax where necessary for understandable communication. A more literal translation is valuable to historical-grammatical study because it allows the reader to see repeated vocabulary, conjunctions, grammatical relationships, and structural features that may disappear when a translator freely paraphrases what he believes the author intended. This does not mean that formal correspondence mechanically assigns one English word to every occurrence of a Hebrew or Greek word, because context determines which English equivalent accurately represents the source-language sense in each passage. It does mean, however, that interpretive expansion should ordinarily remain the work of the reader, teacher, or commentator rather than being silently inserted into the biblical text itself. The difference is important because an interpretation placed directly into a translation can become invisible to the reader, who may assume he is reading what the biblical writer actually wrote when he is reading a translator’s explanation of it. Historical-grammatical exegesis is strengthened when the English wording preserves as much of the source text’s lexical, grammatical, and syntactical information as intelligible English allows. Translation and interpretation therefore remain closely related but distinguishable activities: the translator faithfully represents what the text says, while the interpreter investigates what those words communicate within their grammatical, historical, literary, and canonical setting.

Historical-Grammatical Interpretation Handles Difficulties by Contextual Investigation

Bible difficulties demonstrate why disciplined interpretation is necessary, because many alleged contradictions arise when differences in context, perspective, chronology, language, or authorial purpose are ignored. A historical-grammatical approach does not dismiss a difficult passage merely because the interpreter has not yet identified the solution, nor does it immediately alter the text to eliminate tension. Instead, the interpreter investigates exactly what each passage states, who is speaking, what time period is involved, what events precede and follow the statement, what vocabulary is used, and whether two accounts are actually making contradictory claims. Parallel Gospel accounts provide a familiar example because one writer may select details that another writer omits without either writer denying the information supplied by the other. Difference is not contradiction, since a contradiction exists only when two propositions affirm and deny the same thing in the same respect at the same time. Chronological questions likewise require examination of ancient reckoning practices, regnal systems, inclusive counting, geographical movement, and the author’s literary purpose before claims of error are justified. Difficult doctrinal texts must be handled in the same manner, since one verse cannot legitimately be isolated from its immediate argument and then used to overturn numerous clearer passages addressing the same subject. Bible Difficulties emphasizes that each passage possesses authorial meaning and that interpretive problems should be addressed through contextual and grammatical investigation rather than modern critical theories that dissolve the text into competing sources or contradictory traditions. The historical-grammatical interpreter therefore approaches difficulties with confidence in Scripture’s truthfulness while also recognizing that faithful defense of Scripture requires analysis rather than superficial harmonization. This method allows the evidence contained within language, history, literary structure, parallel accounts, and canonical teaching to resolve questions wherever sufficient information is available.

Prophecy Must Remain Governed by the Inspired Text

Prophetic interpretation especially requires historical-grammatical discipline because prophecy readily attracts speculation, date setting, newspaper correlations, allegorical systems, and attempts to identify modern personalities without adequate textual evidence. The prophetic books were originally given as meaningful revelation to actual audiences, so their language must first be understood within the historical circumstances, grammatical structures, and literary conventions in which Jehovah caused it to be written. Daniel therefore cannot be treated as a blank prophetic chart onto which every generation places current empires, wars, political movements, or personalities, because Daniel’s own historical setting and inspired explanations establish controls upon the visions. Revelation likewise contains symbols, but those symbols possess textual relationships, Old Testament backgrounds, structural functions, and inspired explanations rather than meanings created by modern imagination. Revelation 1:20, for example, expressly identifies the seven lampstands as the seven churches, demonstrating how the book itself can interpret its symbolic vocabulary. Ezekiel’s visions and symbolic actions similarly belong to the prophet’s ministry among exiles and must be interpreted through the circumstances and explanations supplied by Ezekiel rather than through arbitrary symbolic association. Zechariah’s visions begin in the setting of postexilic restoration and temple rebuilding, so their message develops from that revealed historical foundation even when prophecy extends toward future messianic and kingdom events. The historical-grammatical approach therefore treats fulfilled prophecy as genuine prediction when the text presents it that way and treats future prophecy according to the same grammatical discipline rather than converting unfulfilled elements into purely spiritual experiences because literal fulfillment is inconvenient to a theological system. Prophecy remains revelation rather than a puzzle for imaginative interpreters, and its correct handling requires exactly the same reverence for authorial meaning, history, context, grammar, literary form, and canonical consistency required elsewhere in Scripture.

Application Must Follow Interpretation Rather Than Control It

A biblical passage can have many legitimate applications while retaining one authorial meaning, and distinguishing meaning from application prevents contemporary concerns from rewriting the inspired text. When Paul commands Christians in Ephesians 4:25 to put away falsehood and speak truth, the meaning concerns truthful conduct among believers, while applications can extend to family conversation, congregational relationships, employment, business dealings, written communication, and modern electronic communication. Those different settings do not create different meanings for the verse; they place the same meaning into different circumstances. Conversely, a reader cannot claim an application that contradicts the authorial meaning and then defend it on the ground that Scripture “speaks differently” to every person. Acts 17:11 again provides a useful model because the Bereans evaluated teaching through Scripture, demonstrating that personal reception remains accountable to an objective written standard. James 1:22 likewise commands Christians to become doers of the word rather than hearers only, showing that proper interpretation is intended to produce obedience rather than remain an academic exercise. Yet obedience requires accurate understanding because a person cannot faithfully practice a command he has fundamentally misunderstood. The interpreter therefore moves from observation of the text to interpretation of its authorial meaning and then to legitimate application, rather than beginning with a desired modern message and searching for verses that can be made to support it. This order protects both doctrine and Christian conduct because it leaves Jehovah’s revelation in the position of correcting the reader instead of allowing the reader’s assumptions, experiences, traditions, or preferences to correct Scripture. Historical-grammatical interpretation is consequently not merely a scholarly technique but the necessary discipline by which Christians hear the Spirit-inspired Word on its own terms and then conform belief and behavior to what Jehovah has actually revealed.

Why Christians Must Remain With the Historical-Grammatical Method

Only the historical-grammatical method consistently preserves the relationship between divine inspiration, human authorship, objective language, historical reality, and responsible reading. It takes seriously the fact that Jehovah communicated through words and therefore requires interpreters to investigate those words rather than search behind, beneath, or beyond them for a preferred theological message. It takes history seriously because biblical revelation occurred through actual people, nations, places, covenants, rulers, journeys, conflicts, miracles, ministries, and acts of God in time. It takes grammar seriously because meaning is conveyed through vocabulary and syntactical relationships rather than through isolated religious concepts detached from sentences. It takes context seriously because a verse belongs to a paragraph, a paragraph belongs to a larger discourse, and the discourse belongs to an inspired book whose author pursued recognizable purposes. It takes genre seriously because narrative must be read as narrative, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, parables as parables, and epistles as reasoned correspondence without confusing their distinctive modes of communication. It takes canonical harmony seriously without giving contemporary interpreters permission to manufacture typological, allegorical, or hidden meanings that the biblical text never identifies. It also protects the authority of Scripture by refusing to subordinate biblical assertions to philosophical systems that first determine what God may or may not have done in history and then revise the biblical account accordingly. For Christians who desire to handle the Word of truth accurately in harmony with 2 Timothy 2:15, historical-grammatical interpretation is therefore not one interchangeable option among competing methods but the disciplined means of discovering what Jehovah’s Spirit-inspired writers actually communicated through the words of Scripture.

You May Also Enjoy

Preparing Your Heart and Mind

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS