# Hermeneutical Distinction during the Reformation



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

What do you think was the the major hermeneutical distinction between the pre-Reformation church and the church during the Reformation?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 4, 2005)

Matt,

I am not even sure it was a hermeneutical thing. It was an authority issue wasn't it? Church tradition, the authority of the church as interpreter of God's will and the scriptures, clouded the picture. That is why the Solus were so important. The RCC claimed authority over the scripture and the Reformers claimed the scripures were authoritative over the Church.

As I mentioned, isn't that an authority issue?

The RCC Church (Pope and Cardinals) interpret scripture.

The Reformers....Scripture interprets Scripture. 

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 4, 2005)

_Sola scriptura!_

_Scrutamini scripturas_ (let us search the scriptures). These two words have undone the world. -- John Selden (1584 - 1654)


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 4, 2005)

Andrew, agreed - and a step of further clarification: let us search -> let all of us search, rather than let the monks/fathers search. But this isn't a hermeneutical distinction, unless you want to discuss who is doing the hermeneutics. I gather that Matt is talking about a question of methodology, not participation.

One thing that is certainly at play here is the insistence (or re-insistence?) of the univocality of Scripture - that there is a primary meaning, not multiple "equally primary" meanings. Interpretive gymnastics needed to support the extra-biblical doctrinal behemoth of the medieval period was out. 

Todd


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 4, 2005)

Todd,

I think you are right. The WCF Chap. 1 addresses the fundamental Reformation principles of intrepretation and authority with respect to God's Word (in particular, sections 6, 7 and 9).


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 4, 2005)

Didn't they also have issues with the primary manuscripts and translations? Didn't the Pre-reformation period use the Latin Vulgate that had major translation issues and through the work of Erasmus, better manuscripts were being introduced?


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Didn't they also have issues with the primary manuscripts and translations? Didn't the Pre-reformation period use the Latin Vulgate that had major translation issues and through the work of Erasmus, better manuscripts were being introduced?



Correct,
Erasmus published an interlinar Greek/Latin text, which Luther used to translate into the German tongue. Die Bibel


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> What do you think was the the major hermeneutical distinction between the pre-Reformation church and the church during the Reformation?



Matt,

Undoubtedly, the signal and most important hermeneutical shift from the Medieval to the Reformation church was Protestant apprehension of the distinction between law and gospel.

Prior to the Reformation, virtually the entire medieval church and most of the patristic church (for reasons requiring more explanation than possible by email) read the Scripture as law. Using 2 Cor 3:6 they regarded Moses and "letter" and Christ as "spirit." 

They read the Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures as "the Old law" and the New Testament as "the New law." 

As a consequence, all of Scripture was read as "law." The gospel was construed as the gift of grace enabling sinners to cooperate with the law. 

What Luther and Calvin recovered and what all the Reformed orthodox taught following them (see the forthcoming vol, "Covenant and Justification" P&R Publishing, 2006) is that there is a hermeneutical difference between law and gospel. They are distinct moods of speech and they found throughout holy Scripture.

This was one of the most important developments distinguishing the Reformation from the medieval church. The imputation of alien righteousness, sola fide, i.e., faith as "resting and receiving" Christ's righteousness, sola gratia were equally important, but none was more important than this hermeneutical breakthrough.

There were other developments, namely the restraining and restructuring of the quadriga was quite important, but it would have meant little (since there were similar movements in the medieval church) without the law/gospel distinction. 

There were even anticipations of sola Scriptura in the medieval church, but none really of the law/gospel heremeneutic. 

Whenever this distinction has been lost or muddled, we have reverted back to medieval patterns as is evident in covenantal moralism (e.g., NPP, FV) plaguing the churches today.

rsc


----------



## DTK (Aug 5, 2005)

For a good treatment on the continuity and discontinuity of hermeneutics between the medieval period and the Reformers, even though the focus is primarily on the period of the post-Reformation, I would offer the following recommendation... 

Richard A. Muller, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). I have found it to be a fascinating read.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## py3ak (Aug 5, 2005)

"Undoubtedly, the signal and most important hermeneutical shift from the Medieval to the Reformation church was Protestant apprehension of the distinction between law and gospel."

Had the Medieval church itself experienced a shift to come to view all of Scripture as law?  In other words, did the ancient church see all Scripture as law or did they understand the distinction? If they did, when did the transition take place and by whom was it accomplished?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> "Undoubtedly, the signal and most important hermeneutical shift from the Medieval to the Reformation church was Protestant apprehension of the distinction between law and gospel."
> 
> Had the Medieval church itself experienced a shift to come to view all of Scripture as law? In other words, did the ancient church see all Scripture as law or did they understand the distinction? If they did, when did the transition take place and by whom was it accomplished?



My reading of the Fathers (with which some, e.g., Tom Oden, will disagree) is that the Fathers tended to speak in terms of Old Law and New Law and tended not to speak of law/gospel in hermeneutical categories as the Protestants did.

I deal with this at length in the forthcoming vol. _Covenant and Justification_ (P&R, 2006). The short story is that the patristic church responded to Jewish and Gnostic criticisms by asserting the continuity of Scripture and of grace very strongly and rightly so. They tended to read 2 Cor 3:6 this way. They tended to think in mainly *historical* terms rather than hermeneutical categories. Augustine did take steps toward what became the Protestant hermeneutic. There were other hints and steps, but the full-blown Protestant hermeneutic did not develop until the 16th century. 

There were certain reasons for this. Other elements of hermeneutics and soteriology also developed in the 16th century. For example, though Augustine died teaching a very strong doctrine of double predestination, shortly after his death the W. church rejected it. Gottschalk was beaten for teaching in the 9th century! It made a comeback in the 15th century, but it came to fruition in the Reformation. 

The same phenomenon was evident in hermeneutics generally. The quadriga (the fourfold method of interpretation) received different interpretations at various times. The 16th century marked a real hermeneutical shift. So a series of developments (social, economic, theological, educational, philosophical) came to confluence in the 16th century that helped make the law/gospel hermeneutical possible.

rsc


----------



## DTK (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr Clark,

I look forward to procuring and reading your volume. The content you've described is, I think, an issue that needs to be addressed, and I look forward to it.

Thanks for your work in this area,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 7, 2005)




----------



## py3ak (Aug 8, 2005)

Thank you, Professor. If I can ask a further question (if I need to wait for the book just tell me!), do you believe that the Reformers saw themselves as introducing a new hermeneutic? In other words, were they aware of this break with the almost unanimous tradition before them, or did they see themselves as recovering something that had been understood originally (meaning after Paul, of course).


----------

