# Extreme Christocentric Hermeneutics



## Gravey (Mar 4, 2015)

Hi all. 
I'm wanting to clarify for myself what I regard as extreme Christocentric hermeneutics, that is the need to find Jesus behind every rock of scripture, so to speak. 

Firstly I am fully committed to a Christocentric reading of the bible, that is I believe all things point to Him when their place is realised in redemptive history. But I don't think that necessitates Jesus being ultimately in every verse or chapter. I'm all for redemptive historical preaching but it needs to be just that, redemptive AND historical...

For example: some preachers see Songs of Solomon as Christ as the church only. But I think that's just preaching at a macro level and doing complete injustice to the details of the relationship Solomon is writing about...we must balance the forest from the trees. 

While much is to be admired for the esteem these extreme hermeneutics have for Christ and the gospel, aren't they really just allegorising Jesus into the text, thereby doing injustice to its plain and normal interpretation? 

As I've been thinking about this I've come to see that many who preach this way don't see the bible as progressively revealed, but rather have a reinterpretive hermeneutic that reads the OT through the grid of the NT. (I think their advocacy of typology can be overstepped here, in that the NT antitype somehow means the OT type has no significance) 

From what ive read some examples of this reinterpretive hermeneutic are G Ladd, G Goldsworthy, G Vos... 

What do you all think? 
Has anyone written on this that you can recommend?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 4, 2015)

Although I may not agree with your assessment of Ladd and Vos ,but I havnt read them in years so I can't comment, I think your overall assessment is right. Like with anything else we can go overboard with anything.


----------



## KMK (Mar 4, 2015)

Gravey said:


> Hi all.
> I'm wanting to clarify for myself what I regard as extreme Christocentric hermeneutics, that is the need to find Jesus behind every rock of scripture, so to speak.
> 
> Firstly I am fully committed to a Christocentric reading of the bible, that is I believe all things point to Him when their place is realised in redemptive history. But I don't think that necessitates Jesus being ultimately in every verse or chapter. I'm all for redemptive historical preaching but it needs to be just that, redemptive AND historical...
> ...



Welcome to the board!

Please fix your signature in accordance with the rules. Click on 'Signature Requirements' under my own signature to find out how.


----------



## Gravey (Mar 4, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Although I may not agree with your assessment of Ladd and Vos ,but I havnt read them in years so I can't comment, I think your overall assessment is right. Like with anything else we can go overboard with anything.



Thanks jwright82,
To clarify...

The reference to Ladd/Vos/Goldsworthy etc was more with their proposing the OT must be read through the NT grid, and that, so far as my studies have revealed, seems to be the underlying hermeneutical issue that leads to 'extreme Christocentric hermeneutics'. So i'm wondering really if this is where the challenge needs to be made.

Taking Goldsworthy as an example:

"We begin with the New Testament because it is there that we encounter the Christ of the gospel, through whom by faith we are made God’s children 

(“Gospel and Kingdom,” in The Goldsworthy Trilogy, 48)

"…hermeneutics aims at showing the significance of the text in the light of the gospel. To interpret an Old Testament text we establish its relationship to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ…Our whole study of progressive revelation goes to show that the Gospel event is the reality which determines all that goes before and after it."

(Ibid, 123, 125.)

I don't strictly deny that per se, but to the extremes that it leads to that's where I have issue (sitting under preaching in this manner for 8 years was a tough gig). Again, this problem stems from thinking that, just because we understand the relation of the OT type to its NT antitype, either the OT figure has no meaning other than the meaning of the antitype in the NT, or the meaning of the type in its own context is simply to be neglected. Consider the example again of Songs of Solomon as Jesus and the church...That smells more of allegory than anything else to me...Or consider ethnic Israel and the church...Or another example would be the eschatological views that insist Christ has fulfilled every single OT promise at his first advent...Many of the Amill boys conceit that a plain reading of the OT leads one to be a premill, and only when the NT comes along do they import that understanding back to quote-unquote change the meaning of those prophecies to tie them into the cross, because that's where the cream is, when it seems to me it's entirely possible that some of them are reserved for the second advent...Why insist on jamming it all into the cross? 

(With that last comment, I want to assure I'm a firm believer in reformed soteriology)

(sorry I didn't mean to morph this into a eschatological discussion.........if we can avoid the distraction that brings to keep on topic)


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 4, 2015)

From my research, Christocentricism, or Federalism are each branches of the Zentraldogma motif invented by 19th century German theologians. Both schools of thought are essentially an offshoot of German Pantheism, via Hegel's emphasis on history-centered hermeneutics, organicism, and eccentricity. 

My master's thesis specifically covered Geerhardus Vos's biblical theology program, which I came to conclude was Redemptive Hegelianism, rather than Redemptive Historicism. Vos specifically contrasts his methodology with Reformed Orthodoxy, which had no Zentraldogma, but rather had a balanced approach to the various loci in theology, without making one dogma the center and heart of the system.

If you are interested in my thesis, or are searching for a cure for insomnia, please message me.

Cheers,


----------



## Gravey (Mar 4, 2015)

Adam,
that sounds fascinating. I'll PM you.
Cheers
David


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 5, 2015)

Christusregnat said:


> If you are interested in my thesis, or are searching for a cure for insomnia, please message me.



I have been having trouble sleeping recently...


----------



## whirlingmerc (Mar 5, 2015)

I would probably agree if one sees some Old Testament Passages as ONLY talking about Christ when there is another context is an overstatement

I think quite a number of passages are dual use.... 
Psalm 45 is a wedding of an unnamed King, Hebrews uses it for Christ 
Song of Solomon is talking about a type of romantic love, and not wrong to also apply it to Christ

Many Psalms have a historical immediate context but also foreshadow Christ ... do all? ... some say yes some say no 
Saying a few are Messianic is probably an understatement

I personally go along with the law as a foreshadowing of heavenly realities and the King is a part of the law and so Psalms about David or Solomon can be taken in some sense as hyperbole for Soloman (like Psalm 72) and reality for Christ


----------

