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 “a 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 (1 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.

6 Responses to “The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered”

  1. Mike Matthews says:
    January 6, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Greetings Dr. Pitchford, I thank you very much for this article you wrote: “The Reformer’s Hermeneutic: Gramatical, Historical, and Christ-centered.” I am just beginning to commence to start to understand this concept of “Christ-centered hermeneutics”. I’ve been a Christian for thirty years plus. Been to Bible school, seminary, and am currently working on a PhD in theology. And I’m still dumb when it comes to this topic. However, I’ve been doing some reading and digging on the subject as of late — reason being, I’d like to do my dissertation on some aspect of hermeneutics (Christ-centered) and how worldview enters into this picture. My question is: Do you have some ideas that may help me in this project? Some hints? Some questions? Some thing you know needs further study? Any help will be most appreciated! in His grace and for His glory, Mike Matthews

  2. pitchford says:
    January 6, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Mike,

    First of all, I’m not a Dr. (far from it!). I definitely understand where you’re coming from, as I too feel that “I’m still dumb when it comes to this topic.” When I was in Bible college, I had drilled into me the idea of a literal hermeneutic, by which, as I quickly became aware, was intended a hermeneutic which could be fully understood by a natural man, reading the bible as a compilation of writings by unrelated human authors. Any attempt to relate the events of any Old Testament history or prophecy directly to Christ (with a couple of notable exceptions such as Isaiah 53, and sometimes a few psalms, like 2 and 22) was met with a scholarly contempt, and the unilateral assertion that this was the product of a spiritualizing hermeneutic, and was simply unallowable. I began to become convinced that none of the Old Testament saints had any idea that Christ was even coming — except perhaps a few of the more astute Jews of the exilic and post-exilic periods.

    At this time, I began to become acquainted with the writings of the Reformers and Puritans, and I was shocked to see how they, who had (as I was also taught) rescued a “literal” hermeneutic from almost universal corruption, really demonstrated a hermeneutic that would be called anything but literal by all of my professors. They saw Christ everywhere, and seemed to view the Old Testament as a unified and ever-increasing revelation of the Messiah and his promised work.

    At first I wasn’t sure what to make of this quandary; but what really began to change my opinion was a renewed reading of the New Testament, with particular attention to the NT authors’ usage and explanation of OT passages (and also Jesus’ usage of the OT, as recorded in the gospels). From that time on, I’ve thrown myself headlong into a fresh study of the OT, with the attempt to understand it in the same way the NT authors understood it. And God has used this renewed study to bless me richly and increase my knowledge of Christ our Savior more than I previously would have thought possible from those largely irrelevant texts (as I used to view them).

    I guess I’m just telling you all this because I want you to know I am thrilled with your idea for a dissertation topic — we desperately need some more work along those lines. My one “idea” would be to do a study of the NT authors’ (or a particular NT author’s) usage of the OT, and draw some conclusions as to how their underlying hermeneutic should inform our interpretive task in the OT. Of course, if you have more of a historical bent, you could do some work on the hermeneutic of the Reformers, Church fathers, Puritans, or some such thing. I’m sure that would be enlightening as well. Or perhaps taking some theme such as the “Immanuel principle” that is evident in the creation account and is central to the unfolding plan of redemption throughout the rest of the biblical story (culminating in the Revelation 21:3 announcement) and showing how an artificial divorcing of oneself from that previously-developed principle, when examining even seemingly unrelated scriptural genres (e.g. wisdom literature) renders a satisfactory hermeneutic impossible. In other words it is impossible to forget that you are a “Christian” (whether looking back to Christ’s taking on human flesh as Immanuel or looking forward to the Christ who would bring God’s presence once again to his people) — it is impossible to “forget” that vital principle, held in common by God’s people of all ages, and still have the sufficient information to interpret any scripture correctly. You can’t demand of each text a “reading on its own terms” if by this you mean an artificial separation from already established Christological promises and revelation.

    Obviously I’m just spouting off a few scatter-brained ideas here — maybe something will pique your interest in some way.

    Oh, one more thing: a few authors who have been particularly helpful to me, on this topic:

    Jonathan Edwards, especially in his biblical theology, A History of the Work of Redemption has been phenomenally influential in my approach towards the OT.

    Robert Reymond is always good — his systematic is excellent, and deals with hermeneutics in a few scattered places. I just read one of his latest works, The Lamb of God, and, while very brief and simple, it was a good overview of the unity of the Bible story.

    Vern Poythress has written some good articles on Christ-centered hermeneutics. I can’t think of any titles off the top of my head, but I’ve linked to the website he shares with John Frame on my sidebar — you should be able to find some good stuff there.

    I’ve heard good things about Graeme Goldsworthy, but I haven’t read him.

    And really, anything you read by the Reformers and the Puritans will probably flesh out, to some degree, a very Christ-centered way of dealing with the OT.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet read an actual text on hermeneutics that I would really recommend, without some considerable caveats. They may be out there, but I haven’t found them yet.

    Anyway, I hope you’ll excuse my incessant rambling. I really do love your dissertation idea, and I wish I could be a little more help. May God bless you richly in your endeavors!

    Yours in Christ, Nathan

  3. pitchford says:
    January 6, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Here’s a link to some of Poythress’ articles on hermeneutics — excellent stuff, I would highly recommend them.

  4. Mike Matthews says:
    January 7, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Thank you, Nathan — for your quick and very helpful response. I am very grateful. There are few to bat these ideas around with!

    Sorry about the Dr. mistake. I assumed. (Wrong again.). Anyway — where did you go to Bible school/seminary?

    Thank you for the “Immanuel principle” idea. I like it a lot. It seems to me that this principle is a kind of undergirding principle/main theme undergirding of all the covenants — “God with us.” The whole Bible story is one of “God with us” — the story of God working redemption for mankind. I like this idea a lot.

    On another note — it would seem (actually this is a question) that presuppositionalism enters this whole conversation also. Could it be that “what presuppositionalism is to apologetics” is also what it is to hermeneutics? That is, it is as core and basic to hermeneutics as it is to apologetics.

    It is late. I am starting to ramble. Again, I thank you for your thoughts.

    in His grace — and with much thanks, Mike

  5. pitchford says:
    January 8, 2007 at 8:07 am

    I went to Northland Baptist Bible College, and majored in Biblical Languages — but I’m not a good representative of their theology. The college is Dispensational, and, by the time I left, I was definitely not. But they did have an excellent language program (esp. Hebrew) for which I am very thankful. Anyway, I stayed for six years, and the final year I taught Greek grammar while taking some courses for a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies. That’s all the formal schooling I’ve had, but God has blessed me with good friends who are always ready to spark my pursuit of theology, and I continue to read fairly widely — so I view my education as an ongoing process, even though I’m no longer in an academic milieu.

    As far as your presuppositionalism thought goes: I can definitely see a correlation — the pagan epistemologies that, insofar as they are not Christian, are not able to apprehend true reality, are as much an obstacle to interpreting the scriptures as they are to embracing the gospel. In other words, if Van Til was right, that it is fruitless and wrong to accept a pagan epistemology and worldview in order to have a “point of contact” at which one may give the gospel (as I believe he was) — then how much more so must that be the case in interpreting the scriptures? One simply cannot concede a naturalistic/humanistic post-Enlightenment hermeneutic and expect to understand the scriptures by it — especially in light of such passages as I Cor. 2, regarding natural man’s inability to understand God’s revealed truths.

    I’m about to leave on a rather lengthy trip, during which time I may or may not ever have internet access — so if I am silent concerning any future responses, that is probably the reason.

    By the way, where are you pursuing your PhD?

  6. Mike Matthews says:
    January 8, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Again, thanks for the reply and info, Nathan.

    Have a good trip. Overseas?

    I’m full-time with an organization called Worldview Resource Group (www.wrg3.org). And so don’t have the luxury of going to a “normal” school. So I’m working on the PhD via Canterbury Christ Church University in England (via Trinity Seminary here in America).

    My wife and I attended Prairie Bible College (Alberta, Canada) — and were quite dispensational as well. That is up until about five years ago. At that point, God did a work in our lives that moved us into the “Reformed camp” theologically. It was no small move. I had been a quite happy and content dispensatiional semi-pelagian (although I would not have admitted it!)

    Again, thanks and have a most profitable trip. Mike

Leave a Reply