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

Reformation Theology ^ | March 23, 2006 | Unknown

[HarleyD]

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 – 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 – 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.

[narses]

Why? When you are your own Pope, you can make up whatever you want!

Like the odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical.

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

Some quotes and links as CB now tries to say he didn't say what he said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708561/posts?page=29#29

Let the pagans have it. God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.

All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/2686288/replies?c=6

[CynicalBear]

>> In NT Greek “Gospel” literally translates to “Good News.”<<

Then please show where that apostles taught the “good news” of Mary’s assumption or any “veneration” of her. If you can't, we are left with their writtings as they are recorded in scripture.

[narses]

Why not show where they did not? Your goofy, self centered religion of One is tiresome and , well, heretical. You truly need help.

[CynicalBear]

>>This coming from an apostate whose claims are that those who celebrate Christmas, Easter and Sunday Worship are “pagan”.<<

“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).

[CynicalBear]

>>Why not show where they did not?<<

Scripture.

[narses]

[CynicalBear]

If you think that was wrong then simply show from scripture where they taught it. Perhaps scripture isn’t your forte?

[verga]

Stop with your straw man arguments and going off on tangents. If you are going to say that Gospel; refers only to the "writings/ scripture" than you need to be consistent.

So which one are you wrong about, or is it both?

[verga]

“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs

And when you all write a date on a check or look at a calendar you are doing the same thing.

Can we now expect a rant like that other goof about the Gregorian/ Julian calendar?

[narses]

You are a laf a minute. Your odd views brand you as a lone goofball. For example:

You think that the celebration of the Babylonian “Easter” referenced in Ezekiel 8:14, where women are “weeping for Tammuz” which is a reference to the 40 day period of “mourning” which precedes the Babylonian feast of Easter. It was bishop Victor of Rome in the 2nd Century that ignited the Quartodecimian Controversy by threatening churches in Asia who still were celebrating the resurrection in conjunction with Passover on 14 Nisan. It was still at issue in 325 and 365 CE at the Nicean and Laodicean councils where celebration of Passover in conjunction with the resurrection was made “heretical” by the “church’s” anti-Semitic decree.
Ezekiel 8:13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. 14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

In Jeremiah 7:17-20 you can read what God thinks of people worshiping the “queen of heaven.” In verse 20 God said that His anger and fury shall be poured out upon man, beast, trees of the field and the fruit of the ground. God goes on to say in verse 20 that “it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.” All this for worshiping Ashtoreth which is the Old Testament name for Eastre which is where the word easter comes from. What God is telling us here is that people who know that easter is a pagan festival are not going to receive His blessings if they take part in it. What about going to an easter sunrise service? In Ezekiel 8:15-18 we are told that God thinks that is an abomination. Worshipping the sun is a form of idolatry.

So if you want “scripture” cited and since your odd world “cites” the Holy Writ as above, no one of any sense would try and argue with you, you are left with the certainty that you, alone, have the secrets of the ages. Be happy in your odd little Church of One. But do not pretend to be the adult in the room as you spew such goofy nonsense.

[CynicalBear]

>>Stop with your straw man arguments and going off on tangents.<<

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Now, simply show where the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary. Speculation or hearsay doesn’t count. We know what they taught from what they wrote. If you know something they testified to just show it. Should be easy. Or are you saying, like the Mormons and Muslims, that later writings were added?

[CynicalBear]

>>And when you all write a date on a check or look at a calendar you are doing the same thing.<<

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God

Catholics do like to try to obfuscate don’t they? Writing checks and looking at the calendar isn’t part of my worship of God.

[CynicalBear]

Thank you for posting that. You do like to cross thread don’t you? No problem however as folks need to see what the Catholic Church has emulated and incorporated into their practices. Same as the Babylonian pagans. You should bring this up more often so folds will be given the opportunity to do research on their own for the pagan origins of so much of the Catholic religion. God will open the eyes of those He chooses. It’s simply our duty to bring to people’s attention the scripture and you are helping me do that. I thank you for that.

[narses]

“I thank you for that.”

Yeah, now. You used to deny you ever said such nonsense. And rational people understand that reticence. Your new found embrace of your own weirdness is an odd sign of how far your weirdness now goes.

Good luck finding your way back.

[narses]

[CynicalBear]

I simply try to keep it simple for those who can’t think for themselves but need the Catholic Church to tell them what to believe.

[caww]

tsk;)

[narses]

You fail. But you know that, right?

Claiming that the vast majority of Christendom, virtually all of it, by your odd denigration's, are wrong while you are right, all by yourself, makes your case near impossible - but again, you know that, right?

After all, here are the odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical.

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

Some quotes and links as CB now tries to say he didn't say what he said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708561/posts?page=29#29

Let the pagans have it. God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.

All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/2686288/replies?c=6

[CynicalBear]

In keeping with my previous comment I will try to keep this simple. Show where the apostles instituted the celebration of Easter. Especially the same day as the pagan Easter. Surely you can do that simple thing right?

[narses]

Why pander to a pagan who mocks Christendom?