TRINJ36NS (2015) 71-90

ALONG THE GRAIN OE SALVATION HISTORY:

A SUGGESTION EOR EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTIC
TIMOTHY GABRIELSON*

/. QUESTIONING EVANGELICAL M ODELS

FOR HERMENEUTICS

A^ taught in the evangelical classroom, hermeneutics is often

portrayed in one of two ways. One option is linear, something of a
three-part algorithm: there is an original meaning in a biblical text,
OMt, from which we extract its principle, Pt, that is then applied to
modem situations, X, y , and z. The well-worn grooves of this
hermeneutic can be seen clearly in the NIV Application Commentary
series, which moves from Original Meaning" to "Bridging
Contexts" te "Contemporary Significance" for each passage.1 The
Invitation to Biblical Interpretation (2 11 extended by Andreas
Kstenberger and Richard Patterson derives "application" and
"proclamation" from "inte!^retation" equentially: the history and
literature of the Bible (steps 1-4) prepare for theology (step 5), and
from this "hermeneutical triad," contemporary significance is found
(step 6).2 The goal is to understand tee Bible on its own terms first,
and only then consider tee current age.^

*Timothy A Gabrielson IS a Teaching Fellow and PhD candidate at Marquette

University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, m ]udaism and Christianity in Antiquity
*Published by Zondervan and edited by Terry c Muck The twenty NT volumes
have been completed (1995-2004), and the OT commentaries, now numbermg twenty-
two, ontmue to be produced (1999-), with two appearing as recently as 2012
2Andreas ] Kostenberger and Richard Patterson, Invitation to Biblical
Interpretation Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad. / History, Literature, and Theology,
Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids Kregel, 2011), 78-82 Their
historical review (pp 69-78) celebrates those who have tavored the plain and literal
meaning o Scripture
After approvingly quoting Adolf Schlatter (The History of the Christ, trans
Andreas j Kostenberger [Grand Rapids Baker, 1997], 18) "Our main interest [m
biblical theology] should be the thought as it was conceived by them and the truth that
was valid for them,( italics original), Kostenberger and Patterson urge, "[W]e must
put first things first Before we can apply Scripture, we must first interpret it correctly,
and this involves what Schlatter calls The historical task/,/ (Invitation, 694-95) The
strength of this approach IS the methodological priority it gives to Scripture Their
final chapter (pp 727-807), which concerns application, gives a practical blueprint for
moving from any biblical genre to the present age, particularly m preparation for a
sermon They give Phil 112-18 as an example, and the contemporary application they
derive IS that God can achieve good out of the troubles w e face (pp 795-97)
72 TRINITY JOURNAL

The second option is a spiral. This assumes the historical

"situatedness" of both the ancient text and the contemporary
interpreter, thus requiring back-and-forth between the past and
present to make understanding increasingly precise. This is what
Grant Osborne posits, moving from "text te context, from its original
meaning te its contextualization or significance to the church today,"
but always preserving a clear distinction between "meaning" (then)
and "significance" (today).* Likewise, a new series, Biblical Theology
for Life, begins with present dilemmas in tee culture ("Queuing tee
Questions"), finds solutions in the biblical witness ("Arriving at
Answers"), and then derives present-day resolutions ("Reflecting on
Relevance").^
The "linear" and "spiral" approaches sit along a continuum of
hermeneutical strategies that emphasize distance. In different ways
both hold separate the Bible and contemporary application.^ Nothing
epitomizes this tendency better than tee Chicago Statement on
Biblical Hermeneutics (1982), or "Chicago 11," signed by many of tee
same evangelical leaders who produced the more famous Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)7 Article VII reads in full: "We
affirm that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single,
definite and fixed. We deny that the recognition of this single
meaning eliminates tee variety of its application." Article IX adds
no doubt with a wary eye cast at Hans-Georg Gadamer

4Grant R Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral A Comprehensive Introduction to

Biblical Interpretation, rev ed (Downers Grove InterVarsity, 2006), 21-33 (quotation IS
on p 22) In two appendices at the end of the work, Osborne deals with philosophical
hermeneutics, and allows for a compromise between reader- and text-centered
apprqaches, but with priority on the latter (pp 465-521)
^Published by Zondervan and edited y jonathan Lunde Two volumes appeared
in 2010 and a third in 2013 The strength of this method IS that it recognizes the role of
the exegete m the act of interpretation As Osborne (Hermeneutical Spiral, 29) writes,
"Hermeneutics, until very recently, has never considered sufficiently the power of the
reader m coming to understanding It has too often been assumed that to read IS to
understand, especially after Scottish common sense readings gave the impression
that we all have the capacity to interpret automatically what we read " Instead, he
says, we must realize that we inevitably come to the biblical text with
"preunderstandmgs", lest these slide mto a "prejudice" that constrains Scripture,
however, we must "bracket" our modem paradigms when we investigate the bible
(ibid ) Osborne's "spiral" thus accounts for both our position as interpreters and the
ancient world we investigate The difference between Osborne, on the one hand, and
Kostenberger and Patterson, on the other, IS evident m that Osborne places biblical
and systematic theology, as well as homiletics, within "applied hermeneutics" the
modern theologian IS playing an active role
^Hence D A Carson (Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed [Grand Rapids Baker, 1996],
125-29) warns against "the new hermeneutic" m large part for tts "omission of
distanciation "
^Chicago 11 has not gamed the wide acceptance of Chicago 1, with prominent
evangelical theologian Kevin ] Vanhoozer cautioning, in his distinctive voice, "it does
mclme the good ship Hermeneutics to list rather dangerously" ("Lost m
Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics," JETS 48 [2005] 99) He IS
concerned that it over-emphasizes actuality, leading to naive positivism Chicago 11 IS
available on Dallas Theological Seminary's website http //lib rary d tsed u /P a g es/
^ /^ e c !a l/I C B I .2 p d f
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 73

We deny that the "horizons" of the biblieal writer and the

interpreter may rightly "fuse" in such a way that what the text
communicates to the interpreter IS not ultimately controlled by the
expressed meaning of the Scripture

There is here an evident desire to separate firmly a "single, definite

and fixed" original meaning from its later applications (Art. VIII).
There is a time for distancing, but it should not be our fallback
position. Challenges can be found in various arenas. In patristics, for
example, multiple meanings of Scripture were assumed almost from
the start, certainly with Origen's threefold somatic, psychic, and
pneumatic levels, and a line points from him through Augustine to
the fourfold formula of medieval times: the literal, allegorical, moral,
and analogical. Many Roman Catholics continue to advocate these
several senses of Scripture, in part because the allegorical and moral
readily apply to life in any age. Similarly, recent philosophical
hermeneutics and literary theory have increasingly questioned
limiting meaning to the author's intent, from the extreme
(Construction of Jacques Derrida to Gadamer's moderate "fusion of
horizons."10 Many will know of E. D. Hirsch's 1967 rejoinder to these
developments in Validity in Interpretation but despite a number
rallying to his cause, his views have not turned the tide within
philosophical or literary hermeneutics. A related movement is the
postliberalism that started in New Haven,12 out of which grew the
field of Theological Interpretation of Scripture.13 All of these
movements, theological, philosophical, and literary, have questioned
either the plausibility or advisability of isolating a fixed meaning
from its modern relevance.
Evangelicals often look askance at developments within the
wider academic w o rld -a n d often for good reason.^ Whatever the

8On this p^nt we may not differentiate between a ^ c u la tiv e "Alexandrian"

and a sober "Antioehene" school, in recent years that dichotomy has been subject to
extensive and fatal criticism The two schools had their differences, but it was not a
matter of "allegorical" versus "literal" interpretation So Frances Young, "Alexandrian
and Antiochene Exegesis," m A History of Biblical Interpretation Vol 1 The Ancient
Period, ed Alan } Hauser and Duane F Watson (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2003), 334-
54
E g , lohn I O'Keefe and Rusty Reno, Sanctified ]/Sion An Introduction to Early
Christian Interpretation ofthe Bible (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Fress, 2005)
10Anthony c Thiselton has done much to arbitrate between philosophical
hermeneutics and NT studies See his revised dissertation, The Two Horizons New
Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1980),
and ^ore recently. Hermeneutics An Introduction (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2009)
11E D H 1rsh, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven Yale University Press, 1967)
12The two classic works of postliberalism are Hans w Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical
Narrative A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven Yale
University Press, 1974), and George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine Religion and
Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia Westminster, 1984)
13See especially Ellen F Davis and Richard B Hays, e d s , The A rt / Reading
Scripture (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2003)
^CarlF H Henry ("Narrative Theology An Evangelical Appraisal," TJ 8 [1987]
3-19) was none too pleased with Hans Frei's theology, and D A Carson ("Recent
74 TRINITY JOURNAL

merits philosophical, literary, or historical vantage points, for

evangelicals foe ultimate litmus test must always be Scripture itself.
It is on that ground, particularly Paul's exegesis in Rom 10, that 1
challenge foe linear and spiral models of hermeneutics. Both
emphasize distance, whereas innerbiblical exegesis has a
"contemporizing" bent; that is, it emphasizes foe immediacy of
God's word to later generations rather than moving between
"exegesis" and "application" as a tivo-stage process or a back-and-
forth method. After considering biblical exegesis, I survey possible
positions and suggest that reading "along the grain" of salvation
history is foe best hermeneutical model. 1 conclude by assessing its
benefits and drawbacks.
My proposal is modest. I argue that evangelical hermeneutics
can be improved, but 1 readily admit that the linear and spiral
models, thoughtfully employed, typically yield good results. My
concern is particularly for pastors- and teache-in-training, and how
foe images taught at seminaries affect their ministry. The analogies
we use for hermeneutics implicitly form our execution of it, and thus
evaluation of foe models will repay investigation.

tf. CONSIDERING BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

A. Torah in Rom 10

Paul's Epistle to foe Romans is a wellspring for so much

Christian theology. At issue are a number of things, among them a
Christian's relation to , foe law. In Rom 9:30-10:21, Paul
explains that righteousness is by faith, not works of foe law, and
thus can be extended to all. In 10:5-8 he plays two OT passages off
each other. Taken at face value and in context. Lev 18:5 and Deut
30:11-14 both affirm Israel's ability to keep the law^:

You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does

them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. (Lev 18:5)

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard
for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say,
"Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may
hear it and do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say,
"Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may
hear it and do it?" But the word is very near you. It IS in your
mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it (Deut 30:11-14)

Developments m the Doctrine o Scripture," m Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed

D A Carson and John D Woodbridge [Grand Rapids Acadmie, 1986], 1-48) has
leveled similar objections Kevin ] Vanhoozer (The Drama / Doctrine A Cannica
Linguistic Approach Christian Doctrine [Louisville Westminster John Knox, 2005!),
whose "canonical-linguistic" approach to Scripture IS a near cousin of the postliberal
"cultural-linguistic" approach, has been more optimistic
15Unless otherw^ stated, all Scripture citations are from the ESV
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 75

In Paul's hands these become something quite different (similar

phrases in italics):

For Moses writes about the righteousness that IS based on the law,
that the person who does the commandments shall live hy them. But the
righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who
will ascend into heaven7'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will
descend into the abyss( '"that IS, to bring Christ up from the dead)
But what does it say" The word is near you, in your mouth and in your
heart" (that IS, the word of faith that we proclaim) (Rom 105- 8 )

Two originally coordinating passages are now contrasted/^ and Deut

30:11-14 suffers heavy alteration, to the point we might question
whether Paul even means this as exegesis. There are two salient
theological moves here. Eirst, the apostle's understanding of Lev 18:5
is, in a sense, straightforward. Moses commanded that to live a
Torah-observant life requires practicing the commandments. What is
novel about his interpretation is that Paul finds the goal itself
misguided: as it turns out, doing the law was never the point. In this
he stands in sharp contrast to so many of his predecessors and
contemporaries, for whom Torah is a law that brings life (Sir 17:11;
45:5; Bar 4:1; Philo, Congr. 16.86-87; 4 Ezra 14:30).
Second, Paul takes a passage originally about the attainability of
Torah, Deut 30, and inserts Christ into the middle of it.17 No longer is
it Torah that is attainable, but Christ, and Paul bends "to heaven"
and "beyond the sea" te "into heaven" and "into tee abyss" so that it
more neatly matches Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension/8
Although tee christological interpolation is the most obvious
difference with tee original, Paul also drops the ending of Deut 30:14
("so that you can do it") and attributes tee quotation not to Moses,
but to "the righteousness based on faith," both of which lessen the
connection in Deut 30 to Torah-righteousness. This is a strange
situation. It appears, not that Paul ignores tee original context of Lev
18 and Deut 30, but that he knows it and, seemingly, twists it.
This need not mystify us, however, nor need we accuse Paul of
playing falsely with sacred Scripture. He has already given us tee
key to decipher his reasoning: "For Christ is the of tee law for

16With most commentators, I assume that the m Rom 10 6 IS contrastive, be it

strong (so Douglas j Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids
Eerdmans, 1996!, 645-47) or mild (so James D G Dunn, Romans, WBC 38, 2 vols
[Dallas Word, 1988], 2 602, 612-13) However, my case does not depend on this
Richard B Hays, whose masterful study Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul ^
Haven Yale University Fress, 1989) takes this passage as its starting point (pp 1-5),
argues that this IS coordinating (p 76), and nonetheless finds Paul to he doing
sometyung quite new with Lev 19 and Deut 30
17Baruch 3 29-30, Philo, Post 24 84-85 handle Deut 3011-14 similarly by
inserting "wisdom" and "the good" respectively into the commandment's place
18It IS possible that Paul's version of Deut 3013 has "abyss" instead of "sea,"
since "abyss" IS found m Targum Neofitt on Deut 30, but most commentators think
Paul alters toe wording Both the Hebrew and Greek manuscript traditions have
"sea," as do Bar 3 29-30 and Philo, Post 24 84-85 See Dunn, Romans, 2 604
76 TRINITY JOURNAL

righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom 10 41(. The precise

nuance of is debated, but "end" adequately covers the possible
range of meaning.^ For Paul, the Christ event radically reorients
Torah, especially with regard to how righteousness is attained and to
whom it is offered. Thus Torah must be reread in light of Christ.
Leviticus 18:5 stands for the old order, and Deut 30, with Christ in
Torah's place, stands for the new. Moiss Silva puts it well. Paul
"was not motivated by antiquarian interests"; rather.

The Scnptures were intensely practical for him However, the

moment we use an earlier writing to meet a current need, we of
course transfer that writing to a new historical context and thus
unavoidably involve ourselves m shitting its meaning^

transformed meaning, not mere application.

B. Two Further Examples

Romans 10 is an obvious example, and has the advantage of

being like modern exegesis insofar as Paul exposits a particular
writing's meaning for a later audience. Truthfully, though, one could
select, almost at random, any instance of a scriptural intertextuality
to prove that innerbiblical exegesis exhibits a contemporizing
hermeneutic. Two further examples will suffice.
In Rev 5 and 10 Ezekiel's scroll is transformed from a message
about Judah's fall and restoration to a message portending
martyrdom and promising Christ's redemption of all creation. In
Rev 5 there is a double-sided scroll (evoking Ezek 2:10) that only
Christ can open. Civen its connection to the unfolding drama of
Revelation, the consensus is that it represents God's plan for
history.^ A message from an OT prophet mostly concerning Judah's
fate during the sixth century BC is now unveiled by Christ to apply
to the fate of a later empire and the church, up to the consummation

19A point made some time ago by c E B Cranfield, The Epistle the Romans,
ICC,2 vols (Edinburgh T&TClark, 1979),2524
^See especially the definitive, if somewhat dated, study of m Rom 10 4 by
Robert Badenas (Christ the End of the Law Romans 10 4 in Pauline Perspective, JSNTSup
10 [Sheffield JSOT, 1985]) He rejects the sense of "termination in favor of "goal" or
"fulfillment," but a number of Eauline scholars, even among those who generally
agree with Badenas, see some sense of "termination" in view, e g , Dunn, Romans,

^Moiss Silva, "Old Testament m Eaul," Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed
Gerald F Hawthorne, Ralph p Martin, and Daniel G Reid (Downers Grove, IL
Interyarsity, 1993), 639
22So, ^ g , George Eldon Ladd (A Commentary on the Revelation of John [Grand
Rapids Eerdmans, 1972], 81), Wilfrid ] Harrington (Revelation, SP 16 [Collegeville,
MN Liturgical, 1993], 83-84), and David Aune (Revelation, WBC 52, 3 vols [Vol 1
Dallas Word, 1997, Vols 2-3 Nashville Thomas Nelson, 1998], 1 374) Eor more
specific views, see fee six listed by Grant R Osborne (Revelation, BECNT [Grand
Rapids Baker, 2002], 248-50), whose general view IS aligned with Ladd, Harrington,
and Aune
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 77

of history.23 Ez kiel's sr ll reappears in Rev 10, now as a "little

scroll" (; cf. in Rev 5). John eats this scroll, and it
tastes sweet like honey (evoking Ezek 2:8-3:3).24 Unlike Ezekiel, John
experiences bitterness in his stomach as well. It is possible this is
meant to draw out the words of woe on Ezekiel's scroll (so Aune) or
weaves in the lament of Jer 15:16-17 (so Eee), but the overriding
concern John's prophecy has with martyrdom indicates that this is a
warning to fellow Christians: God's word is sweet, but it can have a
bitter end (so Caird).^ In both appearances of Ezekiel's scroll, then,
there is continuity, but also change. As Grant Osborne writes, "John
is fully cognizant of the context behind his allusions but nevertheless
transforms them by applying them to the new apocalyptic situation in
his visions."26
Analogously, in the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings, up to
the time of Solomon, "Israel" signifies the united monarchy, and
after that exclusively the Northern Kingdom. The books of
1-2 Chronicles appropnate this term for postexilic Yehud, retaining
the historical identification with the Northern Kingdom but
innovatively naming postcivil war Judah "Israel" as well. Even while
both kingdoms are active (2 Chron 10-28), at least eleven times the
author refers to the South as "Israel," an unprecedented usage as far
as is known.22 Likewise, very often "Israel" is Israel in the most
expansive sense, including North and South, as well as sojourners in
the land as if the split had never o c c u r r e d .23 However, lest anyone
paint the Chronicler as a theologian at the expense of history, it is
important that, by and large, "Israel" retains its original meaning,
the Northern Kingdom. Of the eighty appearances of "Israel" in
2 Chron 10-28, a majority of instances (fifty-one) are about the
North. Of these, thirty-one are taken from Kings, leaving twenty that
are recorded by the Chronicler h i m s e l f . 2 Hardly does the Chronicler
facilely cast aside the historical meaning of "Israel," but he does put
it to a new purpose. Isaac Kalimi captures this twofold role
(although with clear sympathies for the novel interpretation) by

23I leave the door pen r historicist, symbolic, and futurist readings f
Revelation
24Of all majr cmmentatrs, Adela Yarbr c111ns (The Apocalypse, NTM 22
[Cllegev111e, MN Liturgical,168 - 63, 91 ) alne disputes that Ezekiel IS the relevant
cntext
25Aune, Revelation, 2 572, Grdn D Fee, Revelation, New cvenant cmmentary
Series 18 (Eugene, OR Cascade, 2011), 144, G B Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation
of St John the Divine, HNTC (New Yrk Harper Rw, 1966), 130 The three
mea^pgs are nt mutually exclusive
^Osbrne, Revelation, 26 (italics added) Similarly, G K Beale (John's Use of the
Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSup 166 [Sheffield Sheffield Academic, 1998], 127)
sp ea ^ f a "rec1prcal interpretive relationship" between John and the OT
^2So H G M Williamson (Israel in the Books of Chronicles [Cambridge Cambridge
University Press, 1977], 102), listing 2 Chron 121, 6, 19 8, 21 2, 4, 23 19 28 ,5 ,16 24 ,

28So Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles, OTL (Louisville Westminster Jolm Knox,
1993),46
29These linguistic facts all come from Williamson, Israel in Chronicles, 102
78 TRINITY JOURNAL

picturing the Chronicler as not only a "passive scribe-copier" but

also "an inspired artist."

c. Summary ofBiblical Exegesis

These are three very different examples. One is a letter
explaining the importance o two passages from the Pentateuch.
Another is an apocalypse reapplying a symbol from a work o
prophecy. The third is historiography partially redefining a term
from earlier works o history. In each there is evident awareness o
toe original context, but the hermeneutic used does not end there. It
uses new meaning into toe old, thereby making toe divine writings
present to a later era. And this pattern can be seen early, within toe
later OT books, so it is not merely a question o "toe NT use toe OT,"
despite toe act that toe issue is commonly framed that way. The
hermeneutics o the Bible, in their myriad forms, consistently
contemporize.

III. S U G G E S T IN G A N E W M O D E L
FOR EVANGELICAL HERM ENEUTICS

The practical question this raises for biblically focused Christians

is how our hermeneutics relate to those within toe canon. There are
three options.

A. D eny There Is a Difference

Civen the foregoing, I deem this option untenable, but it is toe

simplest solution and adopted by a number o evangelicals^ It is
attractive in that it allows us to practice toe historical-grammatical
hermeneutics we are accustomed to without admitting a disjunction
betw een modern and ancient times. In his contribution to Three
Views on the N ew Testament Use of the Old Testament, Walter Kaiser
uses the language o "single meaning and unified reerents" to
describe his view.32 He concludes that he is "hesitant to see toe NT
override what God had originally said" in context, this
"overriding" is any sort o midrash, allegory, or sensus pleniorwith
but one exception: "unless [God] signaled in toe OT text that what
had been said had a built-in obsolescence and was effective as a

Isaac Kalim!, The Reshaping / Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Wmona

Lake, IN Eisenbrauris, 2005), 407
31In the estimatien ?eter Enns (Inspiration and Incarnation Evangelicals and the
Problem of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids Baker, 2005], 158), this "seems to be the
most prevalent evangehcal response," although my impression IS that option 2 IS
^Walter Kaiser, "Single Meaning, Unified Referents Accurate and Authoritative
Citations of the Old Testament by the New Testament," m Three Views on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde,
Counterpoints (Grand Rapids Zondervan, 2007),45-8
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 79

model' or 'pattem' (tabmt) only until such a time as the real came."^
This is also the track taken by Chicago I! in defense of its linear
hermeneutic. Article XVII denies that "one passage corrects or
militates against another," and further denies that "later writers of
Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting
from or referring to them." The underlying assumption seems to be
that any change to the original meaning is, ipso facto, illegitimate.
That is why, for Chicago II, even prophetic utterances that NT
authors apply to Christ must have come forth already laden with
their entire meaning: the "single meaning of a prophet's words
includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words
by the prophet and necessarily involves the intention of God
evidenced in the fulfillment of those words" (Art. XVIII).34 Eor both
Kaiser and Chicago II, then, something not unlike the historical-
grammatical method is at work within the Bible itself, and thus we
can happily comply. Some may be persuaded by their explanations;
many (myself included) are not, based on passages such as the
above.33 This leads to a second possibility.

33Ibid, 89 His specilic example of this exception IS Exod 25 9, 40, when Moses
makes the earthly tabernacle after the "pattern" God revealed to him Kaiser gives the
terms midrash and allegory (esp pp 72-88), as well as sensus plemor (esp pp 45-72), as
counterexamples to the historic^-grammatical method Broadly speaking, midrash
(from , "to seek") IS the name given to rabbinic exegesis of the Hebrew Bible
Among other things, it draws together passages across genres and historical situations
based on a common word, and it explains odd or unclear biblical texts by conjecturing
solutions Midrash IS called halakah when it concerns legal disputes and haggadah
when It concerns a yth 1 1 g else, such as na^rat1v s and parables Allegpry (from the
late word , "figurative language", earlier was used to the same
effect) was used by Classical and Hellenistic Greeks to bring the mythology of Homer
and Hesiod into line with developments m ethics, science, and philosophy Sensus
plemor (hatm for "fuller sense") was a common Christian hermeneutic from the early
patristic age onward Qumtessentially, there IS a fourfold meaning to any passage the
literal, allegorical, moral, and analogical The common conviction for all three
exegetical strategies IS that the ancient meaning of the Scripture IS relevant to later
times, but often it comes by a sense other than the literal one It should not be thought
that these categories were isolated from each other, nor that they were exclusively
practiced by only one group The Jewish philosopher ?hilo, for example, allegorizes
Genesis to make it compatible with Middle Platonism, and Paul's moral and cultic
reasoning m the Corinthian correspondence IS not unlike casuistic midrash (so Peter j
Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle the Gentiles,
CRINT31 [Assen VanGorcum, 1990])
34I can agree with everything m that sentence except "single," and in fact the
m^le^ble definition of "single" betrays the inherent difficulties of this option
35A quick survey of G K Beale and D A Carson, e d s, Commentary on the New
Testament Use / the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Baker, 2007) shows how often
evangelical biblical scholars see more at work than simple fashrical-grammatical
exegesis This IS explicit m Klyne Snodgrass, "The Use of the Old Testament m the
New," m Interpreting the New Testament Essays on Methods and Issues, ed David Alan
Black and David s Dockery (Nashville Broadman & Holman, 2001), 209-29 He even
speaks of the "disturbingly creative" use of the OT by NT authors (p 210)
80 TRINITY JOURNAL

B. D ivide Ancientfrom M odem Hermeneutics

This is another way to preserve the linear and spiral models. In

this case we grant biblical authors a special dispensation to employ
various exegetical strategies no longer open to us, making
allowances for accommodation to their cultural milieu and, more
importantly, the guidance of foe Holy Spirit. The classic articulation
comes from Richard Longenecker in his Biblical Exegesis in the
Apostolic Period:

What then can be said to our question, "Can we reproduce the

exegesis of the New Testament?" 1 suggest that we must answer
both "No" and "Yes." Where that exegesis is based on a revelatory
stance, or where it evidences itself to be merely cultural, or where it
shows itself to be circumstantial or ad hominem in nature, "No."
Where, however, it treats the Old Testament in a more literal
fashion, following foe course of what we speak of today as
historico-grammatical exegesis, "Yes." Our commitment as
Christians is to the reproduction of the apostolic faith and doctrine,
and not necessarily to the specific apostolic exegetical practices.^

Peter Enns may be included in this camp as well, though with

difficulty. In Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns worries that
Longenecker has erred because, by distinguishing among foe
apostolic exegetical practices, "[t]he ultimate standard is still ours,
not theirs," and this, to his mind, "amounts to not following the
apostles in any meaningful sense/'^ He divides instead between
their "hermeneutical goal," that is, the centrality of Jesus's death and
resurrection for understanding the OT, which we are obliged to
adopt, and their "exegetical method."38 Concerning foe latter, Enns
cautions, "we do not live in the Second Temple world. What made
sense back then would not necessarily make sense now."39 He does
not advocate a simple return to the fostorical-grammatical method.
He recognizes a "dilemma," and asks evangelicals to prioritize the
"christotelic" goal over any particular method.^ The stance is
tentative, and it does not seem to have grown any firmer with his

36Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed (Grand

R api^ Eerdmans, 1999), 198 H i e a s o n s are given on pp 193-98
37Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 158, italics original This book generated a
firestorm of debate, but so far as 1 know the concerns did not entail his views of
modern hermeneutics Rather, the debate concerned whether he undermined
inerrancy by emphasizing the human, over agamst divine, aspect of Scripture

39Ibid, 159 fie characterizes NT exegesis not so much as a "method" as "an

intuitive, Spirit-led engagement of Scripture, with the anchor being not what the Old
Testament author mtended but how Christ gives the Old Testament Its final
coherence" (p 160)
40Ibid , 526- The quoted phrases both occur several times over these pages
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 81

essay in the previously mentioned Three Views, written several years

later.41
The strength of this approach is that it allows us to acknowledge
the complexity of innerbiblical exegesis and liken it to extrabiblical
methods such as midrash and allegory, while retaining for ourselves
a historically attuned hermeneutic. It is preferable to the first option.
But Enns's vacillation is telling. The price paid for these benefits is
high. Eor one thing, we find ourselves at odds with most Christian
exegetes over the centuries, including those who crafted the
touchstones of Christian orthodoxy, the Nicene-^n^antinopolitan
and Chalcedonian Creeds. More im ^rtantly, it risks artificiality te
stand by tee conclusions of biblical authors while questioning their
means.^ The position is not indefensible, but it is vulnerable.

c. Accept Continuity ofHermeneutics

By and large evangelicals have not endorsed tee simple but
provocative thesis that tee biblical authors lay down a pattern for us,
not only in doctrine, but also in how they use Scripture. Perhaps it is
time to consider it. Granting this thesis leads away from tee linear
and spiral models, which separate ancient and modern, to a
contemporizing hermeneutic. Of course, not all contemporizing
hermeneutics are equally appealing, and it is necessary te select one
that does justice to both tee divine and human authorship of
Scripture. A modern appropriation of pesher, for example, would
yield something like tee far-fetched "Bible c o d e s . B e t t e r , but still
insufficient, are moralistic readings of tee Bible, for although they
may instill good behavior, often they do so at the expense of doctrine
or even tee gospel. If we are to follow biblical precedent and provide
a helpful model for Christians, we need a method of ecclesial
reading that takes the historical situation seriously, but joins it
emphatically to its present reality.
The best metaphor for this is reading "along the grain" of
salvation history. A beautiful piece of wood, well cut and stained,
draws the eye down its curves, past knots and ripples. Something

41Peter Enns, "Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New
Testament Use o the Old in Its First-Century In^rpretive Environment," in New
Testament Use ofthe Old Testament, 167-217.
^Longencker (Biblical Exegesis, 198) defends against this charge by
distinguishing "descriptive" from "normative." Just as in church governance and
charismatic gifts we do not necessarily need to reproduce the state of first-century
Christianity even though we describe it, so also with hermeneutics. The difficulty is
that the conclusions we are to believe are derived directly from the exegetical method,
which is not the case in the other examples.
^Like midrash (see n. 32), pesher (from , "to interpret") is a Jewish exegetical
technique. It is best represented by Qumran, especially in the Pesher to Habakkuk
(lQpHab). Habakkuk 1:1-2:20 is read as an intricate but cryptic prophecy of the
events that led to the founding to their community. The common refrain "this
(passage) is that (event)" of the pesherim is reminiscent of Paul's ("this
is") formula in Pom 10:6-8.
82 TRINITY JOURNAL

very much like this happens in biblical exegesis. Later authnrs start
with the original meaning of the earlier text but immediately draw
the passage diachronically to their own day. Unlike the linear and
spiral models, real changes occur. Sometimes they are small, other
times large, just as wood grain may bend lightly or sharply. What
protects the interpretation from going wildly astray is that it follows
salvation history as its axis. The scriptural modifications present in
Chronicles, Romans, and Revelation all brought an older passage up
to date, accounting for God's new actions in the world. If the OT is at
times greatly changed by toe NT, it is not out of apostolic
carelessness or frickery, but because the climax of Israel's story had
arrivedand therefore Israel's Scriptures needed to be brought into
anew epoch.
No one exegetical method exhausts an "along toe grain"
hermeneutic. Midrash, single- or double-fulfillment of prophecies,
thematic or symbolic interpretation, and ethical exempta all can be
subsumed into this larger category.^ Paul's "midrashic" reading of
Lev 18 and Deut 30, for example, is not toe same as toe Chronicler's
thematic updating of "Israel," but toe undergirding conviction
aligns: much as "Israel" changed meaning after toe exile, so toe role
of Torah was significantly recast by Christ. If one technique stands
out as particularly fitting, it is typology, especially as defined by
Leonhard Goppelt. In his pioneering work, toe hallmark of typology
is patterned continuity in history, and he differentiates typology
from allegory on toe ground that, for typology, "the [historical]
reality of the things described is indispensable."^ His "typological
approach" takes historical facts (people, actions, events, and
institutions) as dialectical patterns for coming antitypes.^ A number
of biblical scholars and theologians have agreed with Goppelt

44See n 32 for an explanation of midrash Single-fulfillment prophecies are said

to predict only one future event, such as M1C 5 2 about Jesus's birth in Bethlehem
Double-fulfillment prophecies foretell two events The "young woman" or "virgin"
who IS with child m Isa 714 refers first to Isaiah's Wlfo in Isa 8 1-4 but more folly to
Mary's miraculous conception Thematic and symbolic interpretations take common
themes from the past and read them m light of foe present, an example would be 1 Pet
3 18-22, whrch applies the flood story to the act of baptism Reading the Bible for
examples of ethical living remains quite common, and it can be found in Heb 4 1-13
where the fickleness of the exodus generation affords the author an opportunity to
exhort his audience toward faith fu ln ess to Christ
4^Leonhard Goppelt, Typos The Typological Interpretation ofthe Old Testament in the
New, trans Donald H Madvig (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1982), (This foe T of
Typos Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen [Darmstadt
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966], which IS an expansion of the 1939 edition of
the same name) See further id em , ", .," TDNT 8 246-59
46Goppelt, Typos, 17-19 Following Frederik Torm, Goppelt distinguishes
"typological exegesis" and "typological approach " The former IS typology proper,
when the OT author was pointing forward to a coming antitype For the latter, which
IS Goppeh's mam focus, God alone has in mind foe coming antitype at the time of OT
type This IS the sense m which typology develops an earlier meaning, rather than
simply fulfilling a prediction
G ^ R ^ N : EVANGELICAL HERMENEHT1GB 83

concerning the prevalence typology in the Bible and found in it an

apt metaphor for hermeneutics.^
Yet typology, 1 am quick to caution, will not hold foe weight
alone. Goppelt too regularly describes NT uses o foe OT as
typology.^ In particular, his strict differentiation between typology
and allegory is not supported by the data. There is no indication that
Eaul thinks he is doing anything undraentally different in his
"typology" o Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12-21) than in his "allegory"
o Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4 21 31 (More generally, it would be a
mistake to collapse all forms of contemporizing hermeneutics into a
loose definition o "typology." It is a stretch to see Rom 10 as
"typology," but it is certainly contemporizing. An "along the grain"
model retains foe benefits o typology while better protecting foe
variety o means by which foe contemporizing is accomplished.
Enns's "christotelic" hermeneutic has affinities with an "along
the grain" model, in that all OT passages, no matter their original
intent, are read in light o Christ.50 So also does the "gospel-centered
hermeneutic" o Graeme Goldsworthy. While he allows for
distinguishable epochs within salvation history, there are common
concerns throughout, and all o foe Bible reveals a pattern o promise
and fulfillment focused on foe Messiah.^ He is adamant that foe

47To give a handful of examples among many, Gerhard von Rad, "Typological
Interpretation of the Old Testament," m Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed
Claus Westermann, trans James Luther Mays (Atlanta John Knox, 1963), 17-39 (on
the ubiquity of typology in the ancient Near East, OT, NT, and church history, with
reflections for today), Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford
Clarendon, 1985), 350-79 (on its use m the OT) idem, The Garments of Torah Essays in
Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington Indiana University Press, 1989) (applying also to
today), Ephraim Radner, "Sublimity and Providence The spiritual Discipline of
Eigural Reading," ExAud 18 (2002) 155-70 (need to find Christ m all Scriptures today,
with historical observations), Matthew Levermg, "Readings on the Rock Typological
Exegesis m Contemporary Scholarship," Modern Theology 28 (2012) 707-31 (reviewing
recent Protestant thought on typological hermeneutics, and advocating its fit m
Catholicism)
48His views are summarized in "Typology in the New Testament" (Goppelt,
Typos205- 198 )
^ h e noun ("type" or "model" in various senses) occurs Rom 5 14, and
the passive participle of ("to speak or interpret allegorically") occurs in
Gal 4 24
50See Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 159 While he cautions that we are not to
read the OT "so that every psalm or proverb speaks directly or explicitly of Jesus," we
should ask, "What difference does the death and resurrection of Christ make for how 1
understand this part of the Old Testament?"
51This has been at the heart of Graeme Goldsworthy's scholarly and ministerial
career, from his early trilogy that applies a gospel-centered hermeneutic to particular
sections of the BibleGospel and Kingdom (1981), Gospel in Revelation (1984), and Gospel
and Wisdom (1987), all published m Exeter by Paternosterto his works on homiletics
(Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture [Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2000]),
hermeneutics (Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics [Downers Grove InterVarsity, 2006]), and
biblical theology (According to Plan [Downers Grove InterVarsity, 2002, orig 1991]
and Christ-Centered Biblical Theology [Downers Grove InterVarsity, 2012]) In Christ-
Centered Biblical Theology he sees a threefold recapitulation of seven themes (creation,
covenant, exodus, entry and possession, Jerusalem, temple, and Davidic king) that
84 TRINITY JOURNAL

whle canon is mediated by Jesus Christ, and he suggests that the

properly Christian way to read the OT is to begin with Christ, work
backward, and then return to Christ.^ In other ways Darrell Bock
might be classified here as W^II.55 A true exegesis of any biblical
theme will be synthetic and diachronic, he avers, set in context of the
whole of Scripture, so that in a certain way Joseph is a type of Christ,
the "us" of Gen 1 is Trinitarian, and Isa 53 only finds its full potential
in Jesus.^ For Bock, the original meaning is "single" or "stable," and
later exegesis draws out the theme into new siftrations.
In Deep Exegesis Feter Leithart goes a step beyond this. After
characterizing a viewpoint that, in essentials, is Bock's ("Meaning
remains stable; significance changes over time"),55 he presses further:
"This gets us some way, but not far enough. Our descriptions do
change over time, but not only our descriptions. Events themselves
change over time, take on new properties because of later events."56
To prove his point, he offers this thought experiment: if a political
operative shoots the president at 10:00 a.m., but the president does
not die until 1:00 p.m., the later death actually changes the earlier
event from a "shooting" to a "killing." Certain aspects of the event
are fixed no matter, but the one event, the shooting, is meaningfully
altered by the other, the death. At 10:30 the event is an "attempted
murder," but by 1:30 it has become an "assassination." Despite the
death at 1:00, it strains language and logic to say the killing was at
1:00 or from 10:00 to 1:00. We not only describe the event differently

first ocur in Israel's history, then are premised to happen again by Israel's prophets,
and finally are fulfilled m Christ (see chs 6-8) He grounds this m typology (ch 9)
akin to what 1 have written above, and applies it thematieally to the temple and
prayer in ch 11 The three recapitulations and seven themes do not, however, exhaust
his method e g , m dealing with the temple, he lists Eden, the tabernacle, Solomon's
temple, the second temple, lesus, the church, and the New Jerusalem as examples of
biblical temples (p 220)
52Christ as Mediator Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology, 152 Reading
the OT beginning with Christ idem, According to Plan, 52-78 1 am in substantial
agreement with Goldsworthy on these points, particularly m choosing salvation
history as the norm for contemporary hermmeut1cs and a desire to focus all Scripture
on Christ, but our metaphors differ In his view, the major epochs of salvation history
increasingly "fill out" the same porfrait of Christ (see, e g , his illustration m According
to Plan, 66), as if each pass over a biblical theme gives us an increasingly precise
understanding of its true nature My "along the gram" image emphasizes diachronic
movement through salvation history rather than three passes over recurring th em es
The practical differences are that (1) my model IS less tied to typology as the exclusive
method of mnerbiblical exegesis and (2) there IS less structure assumed in the
movement from one epoch of biblical history to the next
55Bock, "Smgle lea n in g . Multiple Contexts and Referents The New Testament's
Legitimate, Accurate, and Multifaceted Use of the Old," m New Testament Use of the
Old Testament, 105-51
54Ib id ,147
55?eter Leithart, Deep Exegesis The M ystery ofReading Scripture (Waco Baylor
University ?ress, 2009), 41 He IS not responding to Bock, yet his wording mirrors that
of Bock, who describes his perspective as "movement withm a stable meaning"
("Single Meaning," 147)
^ Leithart, Deep Exegesis, 41
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 85

after 1:00; the ten-o'cleek sheoting retreactively becomes an

assassination at 1:00.57 So also with texts, says Leithart.58 To return
once more to Rom 10, Paul argues that Lev 18:5 still describes the
older form of righteousness in God's plan, but Deut 30:11-14 now
intends Christ as the one who brings righteousness near. The Christ
event retroactively altered the meaning of these OT texts. Read along
the grain, they gain new depth and texture.59
As this brief review indicates, there is some precedent within
conservative Protestantism for contemporizing hermeneutics. It is,
however, a minority position, and mostly it has been done by
adopting typological or sensus plenior strategies from mainline
Protestantism or Catholicism. Some evangelicals do have a foothold
in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and my "along the
grain" hermeneutic fits within this still developing field.^ Most
evangelicals, however, remain skeptical. Further, even though many
influential conservative biblical scholars acknowledge various
contemporizing hermeneutics within the Bible, rarely is that
extrapolated to our own hermeneutics.^! That, I suggest, we should
remedy. Further, the particular model of "along the grain" of
salvation history has not been suggested by anyone, so far as 1 am
aware. It has cousins in various figurai or canonical readings of
Scripture, but offers a unique lens by which to view biblical
herm eneutics.

IV. M EASU RIN G EUE SIGNIFICANCE

Though in some ways terminological, my concern is not mere

semantics. Allow me to compare my "along the grain" model with
the linear and spiral ones. To start with potential drawbacks,
contemporizing hermeneutics are hard to practice in academia,
where the ingrained ideal is dispassionate objectivism. The linear
and spiral hermeneutics can isolate historical from contemporary
meaning and thereby accommodate better to the secular university.

57Ibid, 40-44
58He gives theeretical (ibid, 51-52) and conerete (ibid , 68-71) examples
59Quite appropriately, then, Leithart tides his ?relace (ibid, V11-V111), "Learning
to Read from]esus and Paul "
^Theological interpretation IS not, properly speaking, a hermeneutic, but it IS a
set of convictions that fit certain hermeneutics better than others ?erhaps the most
notable evangelical practitioner of theological interpretation, Kevin Vanhoozer,
writes m his "Introduction" to the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible
(Grand Rapids Baker, 2005), which he himself edited, "Theological interpretation IS
not simply a matter of imposing a general hermeneutic on the Bible" (p 19), as It
eschews trends m both modermsm and postmodernism (pp 20-21) Instead it coheres
in three convictions (1) the Bible IS to be interpreted by biblical scholars, theologians,
and general Christians alike, (2) interpretation ought to be characterized by a
"governing interest m God" and God's message and activity, and (3) many academic
apprp^ches can fit within theological interpretation (pp 21-23)
^But see Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology, 152 "the hermeneutics of
the New Testament documents are m an important sense normative for us "
86 TRINITY JOURNAL

Here I will make a concession. While postmodernism questions

whether any viewpoint is unbiased, there is definite value for
retaining a historical methodology in researching toe bible. Lexicons,
for example, provide a wealth of linguistic information with minimal
interpretation that is equally helpful to a Baptist, Catholic, or
a^ ostic scholar. Biblical studies as a historical discipline allows for a
level playing field and provides a meeting point for those of
radically different perspectives.
The singular problem with this objectivism, insofar as it affects
our seminaries and churches, is that no one in our pews reads toe
canon this way. And that is no deficiency on their part. By instinct
Christians have always read with a contemporizing bent. In a
celebrated article, David Steinmetz gives this example:

How was a French parish priest in 1150 to understand Psalm 137,

which bemoans captivity in Babylon, makes rude remarks about
Edomites, expresses an ineradicable longing for a glimpse of
Jerusalem, and pronounces a blessing on anyone who avenges the
destruction of the temple by dashing Babylonian children against a
rock? The priest lives in Concale, not Babylon, has no personal
quarrel with Edomites, cherishes no ambitions to visit Jerusalem
(though he might fancy a holiday in Paris), and is expressly
forbidden by Jesus to avenge himself on his enemies. Unless Psalm
137 has more than one possible meaning, it cannot be used as a
prayer by the church and must be rejected as a lament belonging
exclusively to the piety of ancient Israel.^

We might quibble here or there with Steinmetz, but his point is

germane: preference for a fixed historical meaning threatens to
divorce the text ffom toe everyday world of believers. Linear and
spiral hermeneutics are clumsy in bridging toe gap from Bible-as-
history to Bibleascontemporary. We need a hermeneutic that
emphasizes Scripture's presence.
A second objection to a contemporizing hermeneutic is that it
raises toe specter of relativism. If we relaxed toe historical
grammatical method, would not rampant eisegesis result? Would not
Scripture lose its place as norma normans, sidelined by our
prejudices? Our fears are pricked when, as early as Barnabas (ca. 100),
toe tree planted by water in Ps 1 becomes toe cross and baptism
(11:6-8). The fear grows upon encountering Origen (ca. 200), who
makes all sorts of lively and improbable suggestions about the
Parable of the Good Samaritan (Horn. Luc. 34): toe man (Adam)
descends from Jerusalem (paradise) to Jericho (toe world) and falls
among thieves and robbers (hostile powers) who inflict blows (sin
and vice). He is bypassed by toe priest (Torah) and Levite (toe
Prophets) but saved by toe Samaritan (Jesus), who takes him to toe
inn (the church) for healing, entrusting him to toe inn-keeper (an

62David Steinmetz, "The Superinrity of Pre-Critical Exegesis/' ThTo 37 (1980): 29-

30 .
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 87

angel). The two denarii paid represents the mutual indwelling o the
Eather and Son, and the Samaritan's promise of return is Christ's
parou^a.
Without doubt, these interpretations are e^ravagant, but
matters are not so dim as first they appear. Ancient modes of
exegesis like these can seem utterly ad hoc, but they did have
methodological grounding (e.g., Origen, Princ. 4; Augustine, Doctr.
dir. 3; Aqumas, Summa th. 1Q. I).63 Notably, the regulafidei guides all
spiritual readings. Origen's homily invents no fundamentally new
doctrine: Adam's fall, Christ's saving work, the role of the church,
the second coming of C hrist-these are all derived from the literal
meaning of Scripture elsewhere. His innovation is simply in
attaching them to Luke 10. The figurai method did at times risk
losing the original intent of certain passages (in Origen's case, Jesus's
ethnic message about Jewish-Samaritan relations), but it did not lose
the gospel. As long as we read along the grain of salvation history,
the spiritual meaning gives life, and the letter is not killed.
On the positive side of the ledger, an "along the grain"
hermeneutic better exonerates biblical authors. Take Paul for
example. Of his exegetical method in Rom 10, C. H. Dodd judges,
"As an interpretation of Scripture this is purely fanciful," and it
would be easy to add scores of names to that general charge, both
before and after Dodd.^ To be sure, Paul did not handle Scripture
any worse than did the Essenes or Philo, so if we critique him we
must critique all of antiquity. Still, the charge stands needing
rebuttal, and 1 worry that hermeneutics that assume a fixed original
meaning only play into the hands of Paul's modern opponents. In
passages hke Rom 10 (or 1 Cor 9:9-10!), if Paul is tested against
either the linear or spiral models, does he not fail? Isolating historical
meaning from modern only provides ammunition for Paul's would-
be detractors.

^3In the centemporary world, Davis and Hays, e d s, A rt ofReading Scripture, 1-5,
give nine guidelines for Theological Interpretation of Scripture (1) "Scripture
truthfully tells the story of God's action of creating, judging, and saving the world "
(2) "Scripture IS rightly understood m light of foe church's rule of faith as a coherent
dramatic narrative " (3) "Faithful interpretation of Scripture requires an engagement
with the entire narrative the New Testament cannot he rightly understood apart from
the Old, nor can the Old be rightly understood apart from the N ew " (4) "Texts of
Scripture do not have a smgle meaning limited to the intent of the original author In
accord with Jewish and Christian traditions, we affirm that Scripture has multiple
complex senses given by God, the author of the whole drama " (5) "The four canomcal
Gospels narrate the truth about Jesus " (6) "Faithful interpretation of Scripture invites
and presupposes participation m the community brought into being by God's
redemptive actionthe church" (7) "The saints of the church provide guidance m
how to interpret and perform Scripture " (8) "Christians need to read the Bible m
dialogue with diverse others outside the church " (9) "We live m the tension between
foe 'already' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God, consequently. Scripture calls foe
church to ongoing discernment, to continually fresh rereadings of the text in light of
the Holy Spirit's ongoing work m the world " Faragraph-length explanations are
given or each thesis, and questions for ongoing discussion are also listed for each
^Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC (New York Harper, 1932), 166
88 TRINITY JOURNAL

Second, not only did Paul, John, and the Chronicler not treat
Scripture univocally, neither do we. In their Introduction 0 Biblical
Interpretation , William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard
add this candid remark at the end of one discussion:

This view of typology helps us understand what often occurs when

NT writers use the OT in what appear to be strange ways Certainly
they use the OT in ways that we do not recommend to students
today^

The humor derives from the discrepancy between ancient and

modern exegesis, and the authors rightly want to prevent the use of
typology as an escape from work. But I am sure the larger question
has surfaced and resurfaced in seminaries, churches, and Bible
studies: "why can't we treat the Bible the way NT authors treated the
OT?"
My answer is that we can, and should. Martin Luther King Jr.,
proclaimed a day when "justice rolls down like water and
righteousness like a mighty stream," Amos's words (5:24) now made
to be a call for racial equality in America. Closer to home, one of the
best examples is, perhaps ironically, Carl Henry. At a number of
points in Uneasy Conscience, he incorporates cangehcalism into the
biblical story: "Fundamentalism is the modern priest and Levite, by-
passing suffering humanity." Again, "The two thieves between
whom Jesus was crucified might, without too wild an imagination,
bear the labels of humanism and Fundam entalism ." The work even
ends with the image of a new "baptism of Pentecostal fire."66 This is
not to say that Henry's words cannot be fitted into, say, the linear
model, but their effect derives from the collapse of time between
Jesus and the modern believer. In these instances, King and Henry
read along the grain from Bible to now.
A third benefit accrued via a contemporizing hermeneutic bears
on Christ. In John 5 3 Jesus affirms that Scripture ultimately testifies
about him, and in Heb 1, Jesus is the crowning revelation of God
over and above the words entrusted to the prophets of old. 1 fear that
methodological priority for historical meaning leads us to focus on
minutia, on scattered decrees, proverbs, stories in and of
themselves. Yet Jesus and toe NT authors were convinced that toe
whole of Scripture testified about him, and reading along the grain
better protects this. In The Bible M ade Impossible, erstwhile evangelical
Christian Smith has reminded evangelicals to have a sufficiently
christological interpretation of toe Bible: "We only, always, and
everywhere read Scripture in view of its real subject matter: Jesus

65William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation, rev ed (Nashville Thomas Nelson, 2004), 184
66Carl F H Henry, The Uneasy Conscience / Modern Fundamentalism (Grand
Rapids Eerdmans, 1947), 2, 55, 89 ?age numbers are rom the 2003 printing Similar
uses the Bible occur on pp 39, 62, and 83, and to a lesser degree, on pp 19, 25, 30,
32-40, and 84
GABRIELSON: EVANGELICAL HERMENEUTICS 89

Christ."67 Although there are many points to dispute in his book, this
is a timely word, and as Smith himself notes, in doing so he is saying
nothing beyond what Charles Spurgeon already had commended.^
Not that such a view is wholly absent in evangelicalismChicago I
begins its "Short Statement" in proper Trinitarian form69but the
directionality of the linear and spiral models are toward details and,
potentially, away from Christ.
My ultimate concern is the effect on practical ministry. 1 worry
that we unintentionally train good habits out of new pastors. Lay
Christians are often intimidated to interpret Scripture in the presence
of educated clergy or seminary faculty precisely because, according
to the linear and spiral models, the historical information matters
most. The "along the grain" approach disputes this, but without
letting interpretations multiply unchecked. Let me illustrate with
2 Chron 7:14 .7 Numerous people in America take this passage ("if
my people ... humble themselves, and pray") as a promise of
national restoration. A significant minority react against this,
protesting that the passage concerns not the United States but the
ancient nation of Israel. Historically, this is easy to answer. The
second group is correct. Second Chronicles 7 records God's response
to Solomon's prayer, and toe context assumes that proper repentance
is cultic piety shown toward toe temple in Jerusalem. Hearing this,
the first group will feel, not entirely unreasonably, a sense of loss.
One among them may ask how then "every Scripture" can be used
profitably by the Christian (2 Tim 3:16-17).
The first group's problem is not that they hear 2 Chron 7:14 as
addressed to them, but instead that their contemporizing is askew.
They read along an American narrative rather than salvation history.
A proper "along toe grain" model believes that 2 Chron 7:14 still
stands as a promise, but "my people" are those who have faith in
Christ, not citizenship in America, and "their land" is not just "from
sea to shining sea" but toe whole earth. By contrast, toe linear and
spiral approaches will restrict 2 Chron 7:14 to ancient Israel and then
extract principles of humility, repentance, or toe effectiveness of
prayer as lessons for us. Dispensationalist scholars might even see
toe promise still standing for toe modem nation of Israel.

67Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly
Evangelical Reading ofScnpture (Grand Rapids Brazos, 2011), 98
^ Ib id , 198 n 3 Spurgeon preached that, just as all roads in England lead to
London, so every sermon must lead to Christ, lest devils scoff and angels weep at the
preaching
69"God, who IS Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture
m order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator
and Lord, Redeemer and Judge Holy Scripture IS God's witness to Himself "
^Second Chronicles 714 IS oi^e of a handful of passages m which there IS a
substantial divergence between its use in popular evangelicalism and academic
evangelicalism, and 1 think an "along the grain" hermeneutic offers a third option
Other passages that 1 could have mentioned instead are Jer 2911 ("For 1 know the
plans 1 have for you"), Fhil 413 ("1 can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens
me"), and Heb 13 5 ("1 will never leave you nor forsake you")
90 TRINITY JOURNAL

Academic study is beneficial, but we who have had the privilege

of it must not deprecate how the Spirit speaks to all C h r is tie
through his holy Word. There is sacredness to all thoughtful, earnest
reading of Scripture. Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

V. C O N CLU SIO N

Some forms of recent literary theory and philosophy have

privileged the contemporary reader with such abandon that the
original author has been nearly abolished. some quarters of
evangelicalism anything like the fourfold meaning of Scripture is
dubious by taint of "anachronism," or its association with
Catholicism makes it seem untrue to the Protestant heritage. None of
these are good reasons to avoid an "along the grain" hermeneutic.
By its emphasis on salvation history, it avoids the worst extremes of
subjectivism, and its risks are more than offset by its ready
applicability to all. More importantly, in^rbiblical hermeneutics
unfailingly contemporize. The field of Theological Interpretation of
Scripture is blossoming among Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline
Protestants, but mostly without evangelicals. So long as we pride
ourselves on being "biblical" Christians, it behooves us not to ignore
the very hermeneutics of the Bible.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.