The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered

It is widely recognized that the formal principle underlying the Reformation was nothing other than sola scriptura: the reformers' diehard commitment to the other great solas was an effect arising from their desire to be guided by scriptures alone. The exegesis and interpretation of the bible was the one great means by which the war against Roman corruption was waged; which is almost the same thing as saying that the battle was basically a hermeneutical struggle. In light of these observations, one could say that the key event marking the beginning of the Reformation occurred, not in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg; but two years prior to that, when he rejected Origin's four-layered hermeneutic in favor of what he called the grammatical-historical sense. This one interpretive decision was the seed-idea from which would soon spring up all the fruits of the most massive recovery of doctrinal purity in the history of the Church. We would do well to learn from this: our ongoing struggle to be always reforming, always contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, is essentially a process of bringing every doctrine under the scrutiny of scripture. And in order to have the confidence that we are doing so legitimately, we must give much effort to being hermeneutically sound. Hermeneutics is the battlefield on which the war is won or lost.

If it is indeed the case that the recovery of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic was the formal principle underlying the Reformation, then we ought to be highly interested in what exactly Luther (and the other Reformers) intended by the expression. If Luther's hermeneutic was so effective in preserving the purity of the gospel in his day, then we may, with some reason, assume that it would benefit us in the gospel-battles of our day. Most, if not all, evangelicals today would certainly affirm that they are laboring with the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation but do they mean by this term everything that Luther meant by it? In many cases, one would have to assume that they do not; because it is often the case that a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament in particular is supported by means of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that drives home Christ. As he once expressed it, He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center. To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the center.

What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage, in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther's grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses' striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.

But how was it that this shift came about in the commonly perceived meaning of the term "historical-grammatical sense" from the reformers' day to our own? In a word, the rise of academic liberalism. The reformers were contending for the truth in a society in which the supernatural world was as definitely accepted as the natural world. They had no need to demonstrate that the Bible was a spiritual book, given by God to teach us spiritual truths, that is, truths about Christ and the cross everyone accepted that much. They were contending instead with a hermeneutic that essentially allowed one to draw from any text whatever spiritual significance he liked â€“ if he had the authority of the Church behind him. But the Enlightenment so radically changed the face of society, that it was soon thereafter no longer sufficient to speak of a "literal" hermeneutic: one also had to make clear that this literal hermeneutic had as its object a thoroughly spiritual and Christ-centered corpus of writings. The basic intent of the liberal theologians subsequent to the Enlightenment was to downplay the supernatural; hence, their reading of the scriptures emphasized the human authors and human historical settings entirely apart from the God who was governing all. And, although the thoroughgoing naturalism of the liberals was soundly defeated by many evangelical scholars, some of its emphases seem to have seeped into the very idea of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, where they continue to exert a deadening influence on much of evangelical scholarship even today. Three specific ways in which, I would contend, the modern conception of a literal hermeneutic has been colored by the Enlightenment, are, first, the maximized emphasis on the human authors of scriptures (together with the corresponding de-emphasis of the divine author); second, the naturalizing of the hermeneutic, so that it intends to discover what a natural man, upon an acquaintance with the natural setting, would immediately understand about a text; and third, the resultant fragmentation of the bible, so that it reads less like one unified, coherent story about a promised Redeemer and how he actually came in human history and accomplished his work â€“ and more like a handful of loosely related sacred documents, with various purposes, intentions, and themes.

Our task as modern reformers has much to do with the recovery of the Christ-centered element of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would let our sola scriptura lead us to solus christus, then we must be willing to battle against the modern corruption of one of the reformers' most precious legacies; a literal hermeneutic. To that end, I would submit the following six reasons why any hermeneutic which does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God's ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul's assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible; that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Paul's interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James' citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading "on its own terms".

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ's own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

No where in scripture nor in that verse is the word “church” used as it is conceptualized by the Catholic Church.

You are so wrong. Look here:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18

And here:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

Pay close attention here – “the pillar and foundation of truth” is a powerful statement. No “denomination” can be the Church that is the foundation of truth. Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH and will not be destroyed.

So where is the church? Where do you take your concerns? Is it the Church you started last year? This makes no sense whatsoever without the visible Church Christ established with teaching authority, and the power to loose and bind. The ONE that existed from the time of Christ.

Think about it. Would Christ establish his Church – to teach the way, the truth – and allow thousands of interpretation as to what is the truth? If the Church doesn’t teach the Truth, Christ is a liar. If He would allow multiple versions of Truth, he’d be an idiot. I don’t believe He is either.

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered, FatherofFive responded to CB’s claims:

You are so wrong. Look here:

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18

And here:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

Pay close attention here – “the pillar and foundation of truth” is a powerful statement. No “denomination” can be the Church that is the foundation of truth. Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH and will not be destroyed.

True Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it is He who will reveal what we need to know. No “magesterium” is taught or condoned in scripture. In fact, it is blasphemous against the Holy Sprit to replace Him with some man made office.

First thank you for confirming that protestants are no Christian, since they are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Second if you read Acts of the Apostles at the council of Jerusalem, you will see....... wait for it..... the first recoded meeting of the Magisterium.

Dang those pesky Catholics reading the Bible and presenting facts that totally shoot down the prot position.

"Think about it. Would Christ establish his Church – to teach the way, the truth – and allow thousands of interpretation as to what is the truth? If the Church doesn’t teach the Truth, Christ is a liar. If He would allow multiple versions of Truth, he’d be an idiot. I don’t believe He is either."

That is like saying, would Christ allow his followers to have diseases that kill them if He is a loving compassionate God? But the answer is, it is not God who sends the diseases, but Satan. God allows the difference in interpretations for His own reasons, one of which may be because He has given man free will, and that, combined with our imperfect sin-nature will mean we are not always right. Then in His great wisdom, God allows us to work out what is the real truth, hopefully we will allow the Holy Spirit to guide our discernment.

If you read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, you will find that they are all considered churches with members (early Christians) each is praised for some things and rebuked for other things, some more than others. Thus it is true that these churches had ideas and practices that were in some way wrong, yet The Lord, thru john's words, was telling them to keep striving for perfection. All of these churches made up the body which Jesus called "the Church" (the church universal), the "bride of Christ". They were NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Though later they evolved into the Roman Catholic Church for a long while.

If you study Revelation, you will notice that even though the seven churches that John wrote about were 7 real distinct churches at that time, they also represent seven distinct churches throughout history and there are very profound prophetic messages there.

Do you think that somehow the Roman Catholic Church escaped being a part of this prophetic message in the scriptures? Which of the seven do you think represents the RCC?

ZGod allows the difference in interpretations for His own reasons, one of which may be because He has given man free will, and that, combined with our imperfect sin-nature will mean we are not always right. Then in His great wisdom,

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints.

Matthew 16 Jesus said he would build a Church, not 7 churches, not 10 not 30,000+.

God allows us to work out what is the real truth, hopefully we will allow the Holy Spirit to guide our discernment.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

In your scenario what happens to those that are working it out, and come to the wrong conclusion. I am pretty sure God is not Monty Hall telling us to pick from behind curtain 1, 2, or 3, to decide our eternal fate.

Everything we know to be good and true about God has come from the Catholic Church. Not one theological truth has EVER been promulgated by a protestant.

>>If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ~~church~~ecclesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the ~~church~~ecclesia,<<

In the Greek which was the language the New Testament was written in “ecclesia” means those called out or an assembly. The “assembly” they were told to bring it to was the local “assembly” of believers not some organized hierarchy. The New Testament church did not have any organization larger than, smaller than or other than the local congregation. The New Testament “churches” were completely independent of each other.

Jesus prohibited His followers from heaping titles of praise upon themselves.

Matthew 23: 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Now let’s look at what the Catholic Church says is the origin of the word “church”.

The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Swedish, Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The derivation of the word has been much debated. It is now agreed that it is derived from the Greek kyriakon (cyriacon), i.e. the Lord's house, a term which from the third century was used, as well as ekklesia, to signify a Christian place of worship.

From the Greek word kyriakon which when we look to scripture in how it was used we find that it was NEVER used to denote a group of believers. The Catholic Church has once again perverted the meaning of words used in scripture. Truth is NOT something the Catholic Church is concerned with.

>>First thank you for confirming that protestants are no Christian, since they are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.<<

That’s an understandable sentiment coming from an adherent to a pagan organization calling itself a “church”.

>>Apostles at the council of Jerusalem, you will see....... wait for it..... the first recoded meeting of the Magisterium.<<

That was a meeting of the apostles to squelch the encroachment of error many of which have been incorporated into Catholic Church belief. No where in scripture is there such a thing as “apostolic succession.” The apostles were promised by Christ that the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance” what Jesus taught them. No one else can have that promise of “remembrance”. Thus the only source we have for what should be taught is what the apostles wrote. Catholic corruption of those words must be put in the same category as writings by Smith and Mohammad in that they are all corruptions of the true scripture. Catholic quoting scripture is riddled with the error of Rome.

From the Catholic Church.

Not until the third century did the corruption begin. So please don’t tell me that the New Testament meaning of “ecclesia” meant “church” as the apostles wrote it. Even your own Catholic Church disagrees with you.

And your expertise in languages come from what cut-n-paste website?

The weirdo views you express already brand you as a marginal source, at best.

After all, those few like you claim that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and who claim that even the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical are a tiny minority, often not even seen as Christian by many in the real world.

The fact is that you claim ALL organized religions are wrong and that even venerating a simple Cross is pagan. Given that this is the point of view from which you view the world, why should anyone pay attention to your odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?

>>And your expertise in languages come from what cut-n-paste website?<<

Oh that comes from the Catholic encyclopedia per http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm. I told you it was your Catholic Church that made that statement.

>>The weirdo views you express already brand you as a marginal source, at best.<<

ROFL!!!! I quote your own church and it’s a weirdo view now!!!!! You are too much!!!

You make the perfect case for the argument AGAINST Sola Scriptura. You clearly understood neither the cut-n-paste you posted nor my comments. Of course your weird opinions about Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship and organized religion in general already made that case but this is breathtaking in it’s beauty, thank you!

ROTFLMAO!

And thanks for making it clear that you have no expertise in languages, not even the common tongue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.