Has the pendulum swung to the other side?

[Barnpreacher]

I would like some of your thoughts on this blog I came across today found here: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/TwaddleMeNot/185298/.

I'm especially interested in your thoughts on this part:

We cannot escape symbolism. As James B. Jordan says “symbol is reality”. Modern Christians look askance at symbolism in scripture thinking it a dangerous road to travel (and indeed it can be). We tend to only look at the abuses taken by the medieval church in their symbolic interpretations of scripture. I am specifically referring to the abuses of the Quadriga – a four-fold interpretation of scripture (literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical). I am not saying that we return to forcing the Quadriga into scripture where it is inappropriate, but the principles behind it are legitimate and sound. We cannot think that Grammatico-Historical interpretation is the “be all and end all” of interpretation Grammatico-Historical interpretation is taking the literary style, grammatical meaning and historical context of the text to interpret the “literal” meaning of what is said. In the reformation, the Grammatico-Historical interpretation recovered much needed lost ground in interpretation and provided a solid foundation up which to build. However, in modern times, the pendulum has swung to the other side and I think that we have a tendency to abuse the Grammatico-Historical approach to scripture in much the same way that the medieval Church abused the Quadriga. The modern Christian world wants nice, tidy, wooden block definition of terms and abstract propositions. We have great difficulty looking toward symbolism and typology in scripture as a legitimate interpretative enterprise. I am not saying that clear definitions are not important for a basis and foundation, but realize they are a foundation upon which to build. I also know that most of us do not think in these two interpretative categories “formally” but we do it unconsciously.

Thanks.

 

[Dwimble]

Though it pains me a to have to say that I agree with James Jordan to some degree (please no flames, I was being facetious), in some circles the pendulum has indeed swung the other way. Especially in the Preterist camps, and of course the Dispensationalists (which almost goes without saying). His statement is pretty broad though, so I don't know to what extent he is making that distinction or assertion.

I haven't seen a terribly large amount of that swing in reformed circles, although in all honesty I generally don't make any significant effort to keep up to date on all the latest goings on, so I may not be in a good position to judge that sort of thing. I have, however, noticed that Preterist interpretations of prophesies do seem to be more "popular" than they used to be. Whether or not that is evidence of any particular "swing"...I honestly don't know.

However, because his statement is so broad, and because he uses phrases like "in modern times," he may in fact just be referring to the current popularity of things like the afformentioned Dispensationalism. Lord knows that sort of handling of scripture has become very popular in the last century or so.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You know, I just commented in another thread right here on the PB on this same subject, hermeneutics. Let me just say a couple things here.

1) JJ is a man who clearly is convinced that any and every idea he has germinated in his brain, every insight he's ever conceived, is a bona fide theological gem, and must be shared with the world. I suspect that back in the days of paper newletters, there was at least a little bit of manditory selectivity that had to happen, because he couldn't possibly mail out 30 different newsletters a month, he had to settle for 3 or 4. But now, in the days of instant blogging, he can basically output stream of consciousness stuff, since all of it must be brillliant, and he doesn't even need to be selective. And all his faithful readers can drop in daily to examine the latest pearls of great price. And all the words must be "as the oracles of God" (2 Sam. 16:23) because if you disagree with any of it, you must be a dunce.

2) JJ promotes "hermeneutical maximalism." I.e. if something can be drawn from a text, then it may be drawn from it. Seriously, the sky's the limit; all you need is a scintilla of plausibility. Two separate texts that teach "the same thing!" and voila, a new "insight", perhaps even a new "hermeneutical category." JJ has found so many "symbols" in the Bible that he MUST be right about symbolism as a major category of interpretation. A self-reinforcing dogma.

3) This explains his resurrection of Medieval quadriga as a legitimate technique. THAT was "hermeneutical maximalism" 1000 years ago. As long as the results were *pious* they really couldn't be questioned.

Who are you to tell me I can't get that from this text!? St. Augustin said X, St. Gregory said Y, all I did was take those and read this text with them in mind, and its clear that the cross itself with Jesus on it was elevated to a point of 10 leagues in the air, and could have been seen with the eyes (granted God gave sight!) in all the ends of the earth! Unbeliever!

Why not?!? granted the first premise. This is pure allegory. It is textual abandonment.

4) The point of an earlier post of mine was to say that what was recovered in the Reformation was the TEXT of Scripture itself. I also said that in my opinon allegorical interpretation was the result (in part) of the failure of later generations of teachers to accurately grasp the apostolic hermeneutic, of seeing Jesus Christ as the interpretation as well as the interpreter of Scripture. And they denigrated the plain meaning of Scripture, considered it barely able to instruct on spiritual matters at all. One had, in that system, to "get behind the text" in order to get at the spiritual truth.

5) There is a typology to be found in OT Scripture. And one needent get "behind" the text itself in order to ascertain it. Its right there, only a pastor need help his congregation see what the text says. Here's how: discover how Moses, or any of the prophets, would have taught the Messiah and his mission from that passage. Now, we have today an added advantage. We can do more from the same passage than Moses could have done, why? For the same reason that Isaiah could have done more with the Pentateuch than Moses could--fuller revelation delivered.

6) We have the definitive interpretation of the OT, so we can see more in the types, we can preach a clearer gospel than could Moses, from the same text in Genesis. But it starts with putting ourselves in that writer/preacher's place so long ago. What did it mean for Jacob to come to Haran with no more than the staff in his hand, away from home in the Promised Land, but possessed of all the blessings of God, and seeking a bride? Can you see Jesus Christ in that? The Elect One, leaving heaven, coming with nothing, to his relatives (many of whom will not receive him, or intend to use him or abuse him), possesser of all the blessings God bestows, and seeking a Bride.

7) That's not fanciful exposition--that's NT clarity superimposed on the OT. And still there is moral exhortation, dealing with sin, and much more in the details of the text which are all valuable, and vital for our proper and full understanding of the text. We don't need to try to get past what's right there, so we can start cavorting in the ethereal clouds of symbolic speculations. For then we will go RIGHT PAST Jesus Christ! God forbid!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I feel bad now, because I really left the subject of the thread untouched. Whoops.

Yes, in some circles the historical-grammatical method has been abused. But no, I don't think that it has uniformly been abused or missed in our own era. The fact that it has or can does not mean that the solution is to try to "balance out" gross literalism by promoting hermeneutical maximalism. In that scenario, the cure is just as bad as the disease. The Reformed world continues to produce ministers of the future who can lead the people of God in a right understanding of the Bible. And they don't need the Medieval quadriga to do it.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I feel bad now, because I really left the subject of the thread untouched. Whoops.

It's o.k. Bruce. Your first post was very enlightening (as normal).