Much has been written over hermeneutics in the debate between covenant theology, progressive covenantalism, new covenant theology, and dispensationalism. Yet often the discussion gets bogged down in caricatures and misrepresentations. This post aims to do three things: (1) establish why dispensationalists are right to ground their hermeneutic in presuppositional commitments, (2) correct common strawmen made against the dispensational method, and (3) lay out the positive principles that guide dispensational interpretation of Scripture.
1. Building the Case for A Presuppositional Hermeneutic
Every interpreter comes to Scripture with presuppositions; the myth of neutrality collapses under scrutiny. Dispensationalists aim to build a hermeneutic grounded in Scripture itself, not in post-Enlightenment rationalism. Our goal is not to impose a method on the text to secure desired outcomes, but to let Scripture shape the very foundations of our interpretation.
Below is a syllogism that demonstrates how we get this presuppositional hermeneutic:
Epistemological Foundation
P1. God is the ultimate source of all knowledge. (Pro. 1:7; Col. 2:3)
P2. Knowledge can only be attained through God’s self-revelation (revelatory epistemology). (Deut. 29:29; 1 Cor 2:11-12)
P3. God reveals Himself to His creation generally (creation & conscience) and specially (His Word). (Ps. 19:1-4; Rom 1:19-20; 2:14-15; Heb. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Purpose & Nature of Revelation
P4. God intends His special revelation (His Word) to be understood by human beings. (Deut. 30:11, 14; Neh. 8:8; Lk. 24:27)
P5. Therefore, Scripture must be interpreted (hermeneutics) in a consistent and intelligible manner. (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:20-21)
Creation & Language
P6. God created man in His image with the capacity for rational thought, language, and communication. (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:19-20)
P7. Human language is a divine gift designed to convey meaning truthfully and effectively. (Gen. 1:28-30; Exo. 20:1)
P8. Since language is communicative, meaning is determined by the author’s intention, not the reader’s imposition. (Jer. 1:9; Jh. 10:35)
Nature of Meaning
P9. Meaning is singular (what the author intends), while application may be multiple. (Neh. 8:8)1
P10. The singular meaning of Scripture is conveyed through the normal use of language, accessible through the literal, grammatical-historical sense, as understood by the original audience (including prophetic texts). (Neh. 8:8; Lk. 24:44-45; 1 Pet. 1:10-12)
Conclusion
C. Therefore, the presuppositional hermeneutic—given by Scripture itself—requires that the singular meaning of the text be sought through the literal, grammatical-historical method.2
This presentation demonstrates that dispensationalists rightly affirm Scripture itself provides a single, consistent hermeneutic—the presuppositional approach. Rooted in the authority of God’s Word, this method governs all faithful exegesis. The task of the interpreter is to pursue the singular meaning of the text through a literal, grammatical-historical reading.
2. Dispelling Common Strawmen
I. Dispensationalists Deny Typology, Symbols and Analogies
Do dispensationalists deny typology, symbols, and analogies? Not at all. The charge collapses the moment one reads the major works on hermeneutics.3 As Michael Vlach, Professor of Theology at Shepherds Theological Seminary, notes in his work Dispensational Hermeneutics:
“Literal, grammatical-historical interpretation adequately considers communication techniques like symbols, types, and analogies.”4
Do others agree with Michael Vlach, or is he an isolated source? Charles Ryrie, Former Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, says in his work Dispensationalism:
“Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency—the strength of dispensational interpretation—that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule. To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.”5
What about Alva McClain, co-founder and first president of Grace Theological Seminary and Grace College? He notes in his excellent book called The Greatness of the Kingdom:
“This [literal, grammatical-historical] method, as its adherents have explained times without number, leaves room for all the devices and nuances of language, including the use of figure, metaphor, simile, symbol, and even allegory.”6
The record is clear: dispensationalists do not reject typology but recognize that Scripture employs it—Adam as a type of Christ, the bronze serpent as a type of Christ, and many others. We also acknowledge the presence of figures, symbols, allegory, and metaphor, carefully accounting for them according to their literary and canonical contexts. Far from ignoring these devices, dispensationalists insist that genre-sensitive interpretation is essential to sound exegesis.
II.) Dispensationalists Read the Bible with Wooden Literalism
Another frequent critique is that dispensationalists are ‘wooden literalists.’ I have lost count of how many times I’ve seen this charge online. But this misrepresents our position. A consistent, grammatical-historical commitment to literal interpretation does not mean we take everything in Scripture as literal in a crude sense. Such a claim would be absurd, and no serious dispensationalist holds it. Below are several dispensationalists countering the idea that literalism = wooden literalism.
“Literal interpretation is not, therefore, a rigid “letterism” or “mechanical understanding of language” that ignores symbols and figures of speech.”7
“Of all the rules, a literal interpretation is the crux. Yet it is very often misunderstood or misstated. Thus, when speaking of literal or normal interpretation, it is important to carefully clarify and define both what is not meant as well as what is meant. Literal interpretation does not refer to “wooden literalism,” that is, failing to take into account figures of speech and symbols that are common to all languages and communication. For instance, if I were to tell someone that my dog “kicked the bucket,” no one familiar with the idiom would take that to mean that my dog actually used his leg to kick a plastic bucket. Everyone knows it’s a figurative way of saying that my dog died. Literal interpretation is not wooden literalism. It’s an umbrella term that encompasses both “plain literal” and “figurative literal.”8
“The use of literal interpretation does not imply that all prophecy must be taken with inflexible literalism. A literal or realistic explanation does no violence to the rules of good style. Throughout life we have countless expressions that cannot be taken literally. We say, for instance, the spirit escaped from the body. In a strictly literal sense the spirit did not flee from the body. We also say, the sun comes up, the evening descends, the night spreads its veil, the church bells call us to the house of God, the wear and tear of time, and so on. These are all expressions that cannot be taken in a strictly literal sense. A sound, literal explanation will never overlook this figurative style of writing.”9
Even non-dispensationalists understand that literalism doesn’t necessitate a “wooden” understanding of scripture. Here is Bernard Ramm:
“To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a “wooden literalism,” nor to a “letterism,” nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any “mechanical” understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation which includes “tacit” understanding.”10
Dispensationalists are not wooden literalists, nor do we approach Scripture with a rigid or mechanical mindset. Rather, we affirm a consistent grammatical-historical method that recognizes the richness of language.
One important clarification must be made: dispensationalists fully acknowledge that symbols, figures, and imagery have literal referents. This caveat is crucial, since it highlights that taking the Bible ‘literally’ means respecting its literary forms while affirming the reality to which they point. Vlach is again helpful:
“According to Dispensationalism, symbols in the Bible represent literal things that can be understood. Symbols have specific literal referents.”11
This can be explained with two passages in scripture (Dan. 2, Rev. 13).
Daniel 2 – Statue Dream
Symbol: A great statue with four distinct metals (gold, silver, bronze, iron/iron-clay).
Literal referents:
- Gold – Babylon (explicitly stated, 2:38)
- Silver – Medo-Persia (historically next, see Daniel 5:28; 8:20)
- Bronze – Greece (Daniel 8:21)
- Iron/Clay – Rome and a divided future kingdom (implied in the strength and division)
- Stone – The Kingdom of God (Messiah’s rule established on earth)
Just because a prophet has a dream or a vision, doesn’t mean that there are no literal referents found in interpreting the symbols.
We don’t believe there is a “statue” that exists in reality made up of these four distinct metals somewhere in reality. That is the symbol, but the symbol is meant to be understood to relate to something in space and time as the author usually conveys to us contextually.
Another example:
Revelation 13 – Beast from the Sea
Symbol: Beast with ten horns, seven heads, blasphemous names
Literal referent:
- Represents a future kingdom or coalition of kingdoms (cf. Daniel 7)
- Heads and horns are identified later (Rev 17:9–12) as kings and kingdoms
Nothing complicated, mysterious, or veiled. Symbols have literal referents, they are knowable to us and usually made clear in the near or far context of the passage.
An erroneous interpretation of Revelation 13 would result in believing that there is an literal “beast” that has “ten horns/seven heads” somewhere in the world. The symbol should not be understood itself as something literal, the symbol must be understood to be pointing to something actual and literal.
III.) Dispensationalists Deny the Analogy of Faith
Here’s a definition of what the analogy of faith is taken from Monergism.com:
“The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.”12
Dispensationalists affirm that all of Scripture is harmonious and without contradiction. Every proposed interpretation must be tested against the total teaching of God’s Word. However, we differ in how the analogy of faith is applied. Covenant theologians, for example, often allow excessive flexibility in using deductive systems. When the principle is filtered through their threefold covenantal grid (works, grace, redemption), every text must be made to align with that structure. This risks reinforcing presuppositions rather than letting Scripture speak for itself. Thus, while we affirm the analogy of faith, we exercise caution—recognizing that our presuppositions must not override the text.
IV.) Dispensationalists Read Revelation with Rigid Literalism, Neglecting its Genre
As noted above, dispensationalists reject the claim that we interpret Scripture with a rigid or wooden literalism. This strawman, often propagated by anti-dispensationalists, is typically applied to our interpretation of Revelation and other prophetic texts. Yet contrary to what dispensationalists have consistently affirmed, critics continue to perpetuate this completely erroneous understanding of our hermeneutical position.
It’s worth quoting Vlach at length here, since he defends the common dispensational perspective when it comes to how we interpret prophecy:
“The grammatical-historical method properly recognizes prophetic and apocalyptic genres in the Bible. There are Bible passages that predict or prophesy coming events, persons, and things. Sometimes prophetic passages use straightforward language to describe coming events. Deuteronomy 30, for example, predicts Israel’s future possession of the land of promise, expulsion from the land, and then salvation and restoration with a new heart. Zechariah 14 predicts a coming siege of Jerusalem by the nations that is defeated by the returning Messiah who rescues Israel and sets up His kingdom on earth. The New Testament also contains many prophecies.
Sometimes predictions about the future come in the form of symbols. Prophetic books and passages with symbols often are linked with the genre known as y Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation are examples-of-this. There is much debate over what really constitutes apocalyptic literature, but for our purposes we are linking apocalyptic with prophecies in the form of symbol. For example, the beasts of Daniel 7 represent coming Gentiles powers (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome). The “flying scroll” of Zechariah 5:2 refers to the Law of Moses. The symbols in these texts can be understood contextually with the grammatical-historical-literal method. No reason, exists to abandon grammatical-historical-literal interpretation because of symbols. Dispensationalism accounts for symbols, and if we use the literal method correctly, we can understand apocalyptic sections.
Dispensationalism does not believe symbols should be interpreted in a wooden or literalistic manner For example, the beast arising from the sea in Revelation 13:1 is not an actual sea monster stepping out of the ocean. The woman on the beast in Revelation 17 is not an actual female human being but a symbol that represents false religion connected with Babylon. Criticisms of Dispensationalism often focus on Dispensationalism’s alleged lack of understanding of genres in the Bible. But Dispensationalism understands differing genres in the Bible, including apocalyptic with its symbols.”13
Revelation as a prophecy14 (Rev. 1:3, 22:7, 10, 18-19) was meant to be interpreted the same way the rest of scripture is, using the literal, grammatical-historical method, which is rooted in our presuppositional hermeneutic.15 Dispensationalists understand the importance of genre when dealing with Revelation, but this doesn’t mean we toss our presuppositional hermeneutic for a new hermeneutic. Dispensationalists reject the idea that we need to alternate between a symbolic hermeneutic and a literal hermeneutic. The literal hermeneutic that we have proposed above deals with symbols and adequately accounts for the symbols in Revelation.
Robert L. Thomas aptly notes:
“The preferred approach to the Apocalypse is to interpret according to normal principles of grammar and facts of history, remembering the peculiar nature of predictive prophecy throughout the Bible. This is usually referred to as literal interpretation. One may· wonder how a book of symbols and visions such as Revelation can be interpreted literally. This is not so difficult to understand if one keeps in mind that the symbols and visions were the means of communicating the message to the prophet, but they have a literal meaning unless otherwise indicated in the text. They do not furnish grounds for interpreting the text in a nonliteral fashion. They are to by interpreted as one would interpret the rest of the Bible.”16
Revelation is meant to be understood by believers, it is an unveiling, not a veiling of God’s Will. When we get to Revelation, we should already have a good grasp of the Old Testament and New Testament, since Revelation is the climatic culmination of all that came before.
So, what do we do with the symbols scattered throughout the book? As noted above, these are to be understood as symbols, not as literal entities. For example, there is no actual beast rising out of the sea or the earth—the beast is symbolic, yet it points to something that will be actualized in time. With Daniel behind us, it becomes clear that John is drawing on the same symbolic language. Often these symbols are not difficult to interpret when viewed in both their near and far contexts. Careful study and rightly dividing the Word will yield the answers.
3. General Principles of Dispensational Hermeneutics
The Plain Sense Rule
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense—lest you end up with nonsense.” Interpret Scripture according to its normal, literal/natural, and intended meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Scripture Interprets Scripture (Analogy of Faith)
No passage stands in isolation. All of Scripture is unified and harmonious. Apparent contradictions must be resolved through careful exegesis and contextual analysis.
Single Meaning Principle
Each passage has only one intended meaning—the meaning intended by the original human author and ultimately by the divine Author. This does not preclude multiple applications, but there is only one interpretation.
Dual Authorship with One Voice
Scripture has two authors—human and divine—but they speak with a unified voice. There is nothing hidden by the divine author.
Literal, grammatical-historical Interpretation
The presuppositional method of interpretation is the literal (normal), grammatical-historical approach. This considers the historical setting, literary context, original languages, and authorial intent.
Allow for Literary Features
Literal interpretation is not wooden. It recognizes figures of speech, metaphors, symbols, types, and poetic forms within their proper literary and historical contexts.
No Hidden or Mystical Meanings
Scripture is not esoteric. The meaning is found in the text, not in secret codes, allegorical speculations, or mystical reinterpretations apart from authorial intent.
Progressive Revelation
God’s revelation unfolds progressively across history. However, later revelation never contradicts, alters, or redefines earlier revelation—it builds upon and fulfills it without erasing it.
Authorial Intent is Central
The goal of interpretation is to discover the original intent of the human author as carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).
The Old Testament is not to be Rewritten by the New Testament
The New Testament does not reinterpret or override the meaning of the Old Testament. The New Testament is not the lens by which we read the Old Testament. The New Testament builds upon the Old and reveals its fulfillment, but the Old Testament must first be understood in its own historical context.
Doctrine Emerges from Exegesis
Sound doctrine is drawn from careful exegesis of the text, not imposed upon it. Theology must flow from Scripture, not from tradition or philosophical systems.
Historical and Cultural Context Matters
Understanding the world of the Bible—its geography, customs, political settings, and covenantal frameworks—helps uncover the meaning of the text as originally intended.
Christ is the Fulfillment, Not the Filter/Lens
Christ fulfills the promises of the Old Testament, but He is not a reinterpretive lens that changes their meaning. Fulfillment confirms and completes what was already revealed. Christ is the means/vehicle for their fulfillment.
Clarity and Sufficiency of Scripture
Scripture is clear and understandable in its essential teachings, and it is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice (2 Tim 3:16–17). It does not require extrabiblical interpretive grids.
Interpret Prophecy Literally
Prophetic Scripture should be interpreted according to the literal, grammatical-historical method, just like all other Scripture. This follows the consistent pattern of how both the Old Testament interprets earlier prophecy and how the New Testament authors interpret Old Testament prophecies. The apostolic witness affirms the literal fulfillment of prophecy. When symbolic language is used, it always points to a real, historical, and concrete referent grounded in reality.
References
- Anderson notes, “Scripture presupposes both that meaning is the literal, grammatical-historical sense of language in its context, and that its meaning is singular. God’s intended meaning is determinative, fixed, and singular.” Jonathan D. Anderson, The Presuppositional Hermeneutic: An Argument for Interpreting and Preaching the Bible with Authority (A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019), 81.
Baker in his article notes, “The biblical text has only one meaning, its literal meaning, and this is to be found by means of grammatical-historical study. If the author intended a typical significance it will be clear in the text. And if we see a typical significance not perceived by the original author it must be consistent with the literal meaning. Typology is not an exegesis or interpretation of a text but a study of relationships between events, persons and institutions recorded in biblical texts.” David L. Baker, Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament, SJT 29 (April 1976): 146-148.
Kaiser & Silva concur, “Meaning is fixed and unchanging; significance is never fixed and always changing.” Walter C. Kaiser and Moses Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 41.
Lastly, the Chicago Statement affirms this as well, “We affirm that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed. We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its applications.” The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article VII, “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” adopted by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, November 10-13, 1982. (Signees include: Gleason Archer, Greg Bahnsen, James M. Boice, D.A. Carson, W.A. Criswell, John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Stanley N. Gundry, Josh McDowell, John MacArthur, Allan McRae, J.P Moreland, J.I. Packer, Paige Patterson, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, etc. ↩︎ - For an in-depth defence of the presuppositional hermeneutic please see Jonathan D. Anderson, The Presuppositional Hermeneutic: An Argument for Interpreting and Preaching the Bible with Authority (A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019). ↩︎
- My hermeneutical book recommendations can be seen here: https://abidingfoundations.com/2024/01/17/recommended-dispensational-resources/ ↩︎
- Michael Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles that Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline, (Theological Studies Press, 2023), 26. ↩︎
- Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 47. ↩︎
- Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 139. Brackets added by me. ↩︎
- Paul Benware, Understand End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach, Revised and Expanded, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), 24. ↩︎
- Mark Hitchcock, The End: A Complete Overview of Bible Prophecy and the End of Days, (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, 2012), 52. ↩︎
- Harry Bultema, Maranatha!: A Study of Unfulfilled Prophecy, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1985), 30. ↩︎
- Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed. e-book, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), 102. ↩︎
- Michael Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles that Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline, (Theological Studies Press, 2023), 26-27. ↩︎
- Taken from: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/analogyfaith.html ↩︎
- Michael Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles that Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline, (Theological Studies Press, 2023), 28. ↩︎
- Robert L. Thomas notes: “Most distinctive of all, however, is that this book calls itself a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). Its contents fully justify this self-claim. Of the thirty-one characteristics that have been cited in attempts to define apocalyptic, all when properly understood could apply to prophecy as well, with the possible exception of pseudonymity (which does not apply to Revelation). Alleged differences between the Apocalypse and generally accepted works of prophecy often rest upon inadequate interpretations of the Apocalypse.” Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 25. ↩︎
- John Walvoord notes, “In contrast to the other approaches to Revelation, the futuristic position allows a more literal interpretation of the book’s specific prophecies. Though recognizing the frequent symbolism in various prophecies, the events foreshadowed by these symbols and their interpretation are regarded as being fulfilled in a literal way.” John F. Walvoord, Revelation: The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, Epub. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), 27. ↩︎
- Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 35. ↩︎
