Considering Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics Part 2

The second section of Graeme Goldworthy’s book Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics focuses on Challenges to Evangelical Hermeneutics.  In this section he is essentially tracing the history of biblical interpretation with an eye to the way the gospel has been eclipsed in various times and methods.

This is no easy matter to accomplish since we are talking 2,000 years here.  Some of the issues involved are very heady (intellectual) as well.  As a result, some things may have gotten generalized or flatted.  But, who wants to read a 900 page on hermeneutics (okay, there are 3 of you out there).  It was adapted from his class on the subject, so summarization is a key thing to keep in mind.

The early church wrestled with allegory and typology.  There are proper, and improper, ways to deal with them.  Many a heresy has been developed through the use of allegory.  What he says here is helpful:

• While typology looked for historical patterns in the Old Testament to which Christ corresponded, allegory was based on the accidental similarities in language and concepts.
• Typology was dependent on the historical interpretation, while allegory was not.

While discussing the medieval church, he mentions Peter Lombard whose interpretative method sounds very similar to that used by many dispensationalists today “The promises in the two Testaments also differ in that those of the Old Testament are earthly and those of the New Testament are heavenly.”   Goldsworthy also traces Aquinas’ grace-nature dualism which became the standard Roman Catholic hermeneutic after the Reformation.  It is semi-pelagian at best.

Goldsworthy addresses the impact philosophy has had on liberal and philosophical hermeneutics.  Then there is the impact of the Enlightenment as seen in historical criticism.  He looks at how extremes in literary criticism have sabotaged the efforts of treating the Bible as literature. 

He wraps up with the eclipse of the gospel in evangelicalism.  This is a many-headed beast to be sure.  It is like an old Bruce Lee movie.  The hero faces an series of increasingly difficult challenges before finally fighting the main villain (I use the same analogy when Jesus is in Jerusalem and he faces waves of attacks from Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, etc.).

Hermeneutical Perfectionism is an attractive error.  We want to think that truth is not just knowable, but PERFECTLY knowable.  This usually means that I perfectly know it and you … don’t.

He argues that Quietism is a form of evangelical docetism.  They downplay or remove the human element from both the writing to Scripture (no dual authorship) and the understanding of Scripture.  It is how a text “speaks to you”, and not a focus on carefully understanding grammar, history, context to arrive at meaning.

Literalism is an attempt to overlook figures of speech, metaphor, poetic imagery and symbolism in the quest for the literal meaning which often corrupts the original meaning.

“It is often assumed that the literal meaning of a text is self-evident.  Yet the term dies the death of a thousand qualifications once we address the mater of imagery, poetic forms, metaphor, typology, and all the other non-literal linguistic devices.”

Legalism is a form of evangelical Judaism.  It stresses our responsibility at the expense of God’s grace.  The church has struggled with this from the beginning (see Galatians for instance).  It is the reduction of Christianity to moralism and self-effort instead of focusing on the work of Christ for us, in us and thru us which keeps the gospel all of grace.

Decisionism is what he calls evangelical Bultmannism where the objective truth of the gospel is reduced or eliminated (no Christ’s work for us) and the focus is on the subjective response of the hearer (making a decision).  This accurately describes the first evangelistic retreat I attended.  I was encouraged to give my life to Christ, but not why.  There was no indicative , only imperative- which is a perversion of the biblical manner of understanding (Hermann Ridderbos, I owe you- thanks for making us read him Dr. Kidd).

Similar is subjectivism (he calls it evangelical Schleiermacherism) which focuses on my intuitive feeling or response to the Bible.  My response, not the Scripture and its meaning, becomes authoritative.  We start to practice eisegesis (reading into a text) rather than exegesis (reading out of the text).

Jesus-in-my-heart-ism, or evangelical Catholicism, is Christ’s work in us without His work for us.  Like Roman Catholic theology, it reverses the relationship between justification and sanctification (Richard Lovelace and Tim Keller address this problem often).

Evangelical Pluralism allows for God to say contradictory or incompatible things in Scripture.

Evangelical Pragmatism is also a popular problem today.  It neglects Christ’s work for us and focuses on his work thru us.  This is common in the various church growth models that appeal to people’s desire to have something to take home, which appeals to the Covenenat of Works write on our hearts which opposes the gospel.

While not the most interesting or exciting section of the book, it is a most necessary exercise.  I think Goldsworthy did a fine job of explaining the various deviations for a good, biblical hermeneutic which focuses on the main issues of Scripture- the gospel.