The Difference Between Hermeneutics and Exegesis! When it comes to the interpretive process, it is essential to understand the four main terms used in the field of study. When you understand these four terms, you will understand the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis.

The Terms of Interpretation

The four terms we need to grasp and understand are: hermeneutics, exegesis, exposition and preunderstanding.

1. Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is a set of principles that is used to determine the meaning of the biblical text under investigation. These principles are simply rules that you follow when you interpret the Scriptures.

2. Exegesis

Exegesis is the skillful application of sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text under investigation in order to determine the author’s intended meaning. In other words, exegesis is simply putting the rules into practice.

3. Exposition

Exposition is the communication of the meaning of the text of Scripture in its original hearers along with its relevance to present-day hearers.

4. Preunderstanding

Preunderstanding is the body of assumptions and attitudes the exegete brings to the text under investigation.

The interpretive process involves a set of principles (hermeneutics) that can be applied to a text of Scripture in order to find the author’s intended meaning (exegesis) so that the meaning and relevancy of the text can be communicated to the present-day hearers (exposition) with total objectivity (repressing of one’s preunderstanding).

Hermeneutics is a set of principles or guidelines; whereas, exegesis is the application of those principles or guidelines – the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis.

I learned hermeneutics in my formal training; however, it was not until I did further study that I completely understood the four main terms in the interpretive process.

The Goal of Interpretation

On the one hand, some have suggested that the goal of interpretation is to determine the author’s intended meaning. On the other hand, others have suggested that the goal of interpretation is not finished until the whole interpretive process is completed.

In other words, the goal of interpretation is not completed until the author’s intended meaning is applied to both the immediate and subsequent audiences.

Therefore, the second option would be preferred as the goal of interpretation because it involves the whole interpretive process.

The Methods of Interpretation

Before the interpretive process can begin, basic hermeneutical principles governing the exegesis and application of the biblical text need to be determined and codified into a methodology so that the exegete can be objective in ascertaining the correct meaning and application of the biblical text. As Ryrie stated: “Principles of interpretation are basic and ought to be established before attempting to interpret the Word so that the result is not only right interpretation but a right system of theology” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p. 86)

The principles of interpretation have been presented under different categories in most hermeneutical literature. In light of the different layouts of these hermeneutical principles, generally speaking, they are similar in composition and substance. However, for the sake of simplicity, Zuck’s layout will be used, adapted, and expanded in greater detail in formulating the grammatical-historical method of interpretation (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, pp.59-75).

The Grammatical-Historical Method

Terry stated that “we may name the Grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 173).

In other words, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation has proven itself adequate to determine the author’s intended meaning of a biblical text. Furthermore, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is the method that most exegetical and evangelical scholars use to interpret the Scriptures. There are two basic truths that formulate the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

1. The Bible is Inspired by God

Before coming to the Scriptures to interpret them, the grammatical-historical exegete will acknowledge that:

the Bible is inerrant—that is, without error in their original writings;
the Bible is authoritative—that is, since the Bible comes from God, it has an intrinsic authority and therefore trustworthy in all matters of faith and practice;
the Bible has unity—that is, the Bible will not contradict itself, the Bible often interprets itself, the obscure and secondary passages of the Bible are to be interpreted in light of clear and primary passages, and the Bible is progressive in its revelation;
the Bible is supernatural in origin and has mystery—that is, the Bible contains predictive elements of future events which are hard to understand, the Bible contains supernatural happenings which must be accepted as being true, and the Bible contains teachings that finite minds find difficult to comprehend.

In other words, the Bible is a divine book and these principles stated must be recognized as the interpreter approaches the Scriptures.

Furthermore, Terry affirmed this approach: “The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and, with no ambition to prove them true or false, will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 173).

2. The Bible is Written by Men

The Bible was written by men to communicate concepts and truths to other men, women and children. Therefore, the Bible was written in a language that could communicate these concepts and truths to its readers or hearers in an intelligible form.

Furthermore, the readers or hearers would be expected to understand the message communicated. Hence, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation approaches the Scriptures in the normal, customary way in which we talk, write, and think. In other words, “this method suggests that the meaning of a text is the author’s intended meaning and that the author’s intention can be derived most accurately by observing the facts of history and the rules of grammar as they apply to the text being studied” (Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, p. 73).

Zuck derived six corollaries from the fact that the Bible was written by men and that these writers followed the normal process of communication.

These six corollaries are:

First, each biblical writing—that is, each word, sentence, and book—was recorded in a written language and followed normal, grammatical meanings, including figurative language. There are three implications from this corollary: 1) the Bible is not a secret, coded book so that the exegete needs to read into, beyond, or between words for some deeper or other-than-normal meaning; 2) the Bible follows the normal or literal method of interpretation; and 3) the goal of exegesis is to determine the author’s intended meaning of the text.

Second, each biblical writing was written by someone to specific hearers or readers in a specific historical, geographical situation for a specific purpose. There are two implications to this corollary: 1) the Bible was addressed to a certain people who would have understood its message; and 2) the point of exegesis is to discover the original message of the text in its historical and geographical setting.

Third, the Bible is affected and influenced by the cultural environment from which each human writer wrote. The implication from this corollary is that the exegete must give careful attention to cultural matters surrounding the text or otherwise misinterpret the text.

Fourth, each biblical writing was accepted or understood in the light of its context. There are two implications to this corollary: 1) understanding a word or sentence in its context is another aspect of literal interpretation; and 2) a single word or even a sentence may have several meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

Fifth, each biblical writing took on the nature of a specific literary form. The implication from this corollary is that the exegete must recognize the different types of literature or otherwise misinterpret the text.

Sixth, each biblical writing was understood by its initial readers in accord with the basic principles of logic and communication. The implication from this corollary is that the exegete must follow the normal principles of communication and give the writer the benefit of the doubt even if he seems to contradict himself.

In summary, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation explains the Scriptures from a grammatical and historical sense. In other words, the grammatical sense determines the meaning of the Bible by studying the words and sentences of Scripture in their normal, plain sense, and the historical sense means considering carefully the setting in which the biblical books were written and the circumstances involving the author and the people who first read it.

A. Understanding Grammar

Grammatical studies of the Scriptures are essential for a clear understanding of the author’s intended meaning of the text. Furthermore, grammatical studies also honor the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. As Zuck noted, “You can make the Bible mean anything you want it to mean if you ignore grammatical interpretation” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 99)

Grammatical interpretation involves discovering the meaning of words, the form of words, the function of words, and the relationship of words.

To determine the single meaning of words, etymology, usage, comparison, and context are very important. While etymology discovers the root meaning of words and the historical development of words, usage discovers the current meaning of words. Moreover, comparing how a word differs from its exact or near opposite sometimes will help determine meaning. Above all, the context is paramount in determining the meaning of words, phrases, and clauses.

To ignore the context will only bring disaster. As the old adage goes, “A text without a context becomes a pretext for a proof-text.” In other words, you can make the Scriptures mean anything you want it to mean if you ignore the context.

The formation of words is also determinative. The way words are formed influences their meaning. Adding or removing a suffix or prefix changes the meaning of words. Therefore, taking note of the form of words is helpful in determining meaning. Furthermore, how words function in a phrase, clause, or sentence also influences meaning. Hence, understanding parts of speech will be helpful in determining meaning.

Finally, how words relate to each other influences their meaning. Knowing how phrases, clauses, and sentences are arranged is essential to the interpretive process. In summary, grammatical interpretation is essential in determining the single meaning of words. To ignore grammatical interpretation will inevitably lead to allegorizing or spiritualising of the text.

B. Understanding the Culture

Studying the cultural background to any document will help the exegete to determine the circumstances surrounding the purpose and meaning of a document. As one writer said, “Without the help of cultural studies, literal interpretation is dead” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 80).

Therefore, cultural studies are indispensable for a correct understanding of Scripture. Cultural studies involve asking questions, such as: Who wrote the book? At what time was it written? What prompted the author to write the book? What is the book all about? To whom was the book addressed? Furthermore, there are varying aspects of culture that need considering, such as political, religious, economic, legal, agricultural, architectural, clothing, domestic, geographical, military, and social aspects. Hence, taking culture into consideration will help the exegete to determine what the text meant to its immediate readers in that cultural setting.

The difficulty may not always be in discovering the cultural setting, but some difficulty may occur in determining if the situation, command, or principle is transferable to our cultural context. After all, this is the second task of the exegete to determine what the text means to subsequent audiences. In other words, what does the text mean to the present reader now in the present context.

As Zuck noted, “One of the most important issues Bible interpreters face is the question of culturally conditioned Bible passages” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 80).

Therefore, Zuck advanced four principles that may be useful in determining transferable or nontransferable situations, commands, and principles from one culture to another.

First, some situations, commands, or principles are permanent and transferable.

Second, some situations, commands, or principles are not permanent or transferable.

Third, some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings that are only partially similar to ours and in which only the principles are transferable.

Fourth, some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings with no similarities but in which the principles are transferable.

Zuck used 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to illustrate his point: “One view is that women today should wear shawls in church as a sign of their submissiveness to their husbands. If this view is held, then principle one above is being followed—the view that the cultural situation and the principle behind it are both repeatable and relevant for today. A second view is that the passage has no relevance at all for women today. This view illustrates the second principle above, namely, that neither the cultural situation nor the principle behind it are repeatable. According to this view, women may disregard these verses altogether as having application to them today because the cultural situation has no correspondence to our culture today. Other Bible interpreters hold a third view—that women today should wear hats in church as a sign of their submission to their husbands. Approaching the passage in this way, they are following the third principle, which sees the situation in Corinth as being partially similar to our culture today, and that the principle is transferable and permanent. The thought is that since women today normally do not wear shawls in praying, they should wear something comparable such as hats. A fourth view is that women today need not wear hats in church, but that they are to be submissive to their husbands. This corresponds with the fourth principle above. The cultural setting is seen as being entirely different, but the principle is transferable” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, pp. 92-95).

Nevertheless, Zuck did foresee some problems with principle three and four and suggested three steps that may be helpful.

First, see if the behavior in the biblical culture means something different in our culture.

Second, if the behavior does mean something different in our culture, then determine the timeless principle expressed in that practice.

Third, determine how the principle can be expressed in a cultural equivalent.

In summary, if these principles and cultural background studies are followed, then the exegete should be able to determine what the text means to its immediate and subsequent audiences.

C. Understanding the Kinds of Literature

To accurately interpret the Bible, the exegete must distinguish the various kinds of literature within the Bible. Hendricks noted: “Before ever launching into a study of a book in the Bible, the first thing a reader needs to know is what that book’s author meant it to be. In other words, what kind of literature was he writing? What literary form did he employ? You see, literary genre is crucial to interpretation. Suppose I randomly pick a text from the Scripture: ‘O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God’ (Psalm 139:19). Or, ‘Whatever you devise against the Lord, He will make a complete end of it’ (Nahum 1:9). Or, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus’ (Luke 16:24). Or, ‘After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven’ (Revelation 4:1). Unless you know what types of literature those are taken from, you are in no position to determine their meaning” (Howard G. Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, Living By The Book, pp. 209-210)

There are several kinds of literary genres in the Bible.

First, there is legal material which includes the commandments for Israel.

Second, there is narrative which is a story told with a purpose of conveying a message through historical events.

Third, there is poetry. Zuck stated that “a distinct feature of the poetry of the Bible is that two (and sometimes three or four) lines are stated in parallel form” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 130)

Fourth, there is wisdom literature which states general principles based on broad experience and observation.

Fifth, there is gospel which includes biographical material, however, it is more than biographies. Zuck stated that “they are both doctrine and narrative, presented to set forth information on the person of Jesus Christ” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 132)

Sixth, there is logical discourse which includes exposition and exhortation—the epistles.

Seventh, there is prophecy which includes predictive and apocalyptic material.

D. Understanding Figures of Speech

Bullinger wrote, “A figure is simply a word or a sentence thrown into a peculiar form, different from its original or simplest meaning or use” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 132).

Sterrett wrote, “A figure of speech is a word or phrase that is used to communicate something other than its literal, natural meaning” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 143).

For example, the figure (metaphor) “all flesh is grass” invites the listener to ponder the relationship between grass and people. The figure is not suggesting that people are literally grass, but it is suggesting that people are temporary.

In this way, the figure lends itself to three parts: the subject, the image, and the point of the comparison. In other words, the potency of the figure is the point of comparison, that is, the relationship between the subject and the image. It is at this point that the figure impacts the reader or listener because it draws a mental picture of a conceptual truth.

Hence, the modus operandi of a figure of speech is to develop a mental picture from the point of comparison between the subject and the image. Furthermore, the use of figures in Scripture turns peoples ears into eyes and helps them to see the truth. That is, the truth is no longer encapsulated in conceptual thought but imagery. Again, this is the pedagogical potency of figures of speech.

Zuck suggested several reasons why figures of speech are used in the Bible. For instance, figures of speech add color or vividness, attract attention, make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete, aid in retention, abbreviate an idea, and encourage reflection.

Dixon summarized the importance of figures of speech in the Bible: “If I were asked what has been the most powerful force in the making of history … I should have answered … figurative expression. It is by imagination that men have lived; imagination rules all our lives, The human mind is not, as philosophers would have you think, a debating hall, but a picture gallery. Remove the metaphors [ie., figurative expressions] from the Bible and its living spirit vanishes … The prophets, the poets, the leaders of men are all of them masters of imagery, and by imagery they capture the human soul” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 143).

In other words, figures of speech are important literary devices used by the writers of the Bible to convey God’s message in an imaginative way.

Recognizing figurative language in the Bible is important for correct interpretation. In this way, the literal truth presented in the figure is to be determined by the exegete.

As Radmacher noted, “Behind every figure of speech is a literal meaning, and by means of the historical-grammatical exegesis of the text, these literal meanings are to be sought out” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 147). After all, to do otherwise will only lead to misinterpretation.

Hendricks presented some guidelines for interpreting figurative language. They are:

(1) use the literal sense unless there is some good reason not to;
(2) use the figurative sense when the passage tells you to do so;
(3) use the figurative sense if a literal meaning is impossible or absurd;
(4) use the figurative sense if a literal meaning would involve something immoral;
(5) use the figurative sense if the expression is an obvious figure of speech;
(6) use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the context and scope of the passage;
(7) use the figurative if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the general character and style of the book;
(8) use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the plan and purpose of the author;
(9) use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation involves a contradiction;
(10) use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation would involve a contradiction in doctrine.

In summary, following these guidelines and noting the comparison between subject and image will help determine the author’s meaning of figures of speech.

Resource Material For Hermeneutics

There are many great books around that will help you understand the interpretative process when it comes to understanding the Scriptures. Here are some books that I have found very helpful.

Living by the Book by Howard Hendricks (Check it out at Amazon Books)

Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck (Check it out at Amazon Books)

Understanding and Applying the Bible by Robertson McQuilkin (Check it out at Amazon Books)

The Hermeneutical Maze by David Blackburn