Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old

Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. By Robert L. Thomas. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002, 524 pp., $23.99 paper.

Robert L. Thomas describes his own work fairly: "The remarks in this present volume come from an exegetical practitioner, one who is not a hermeneutical theoretician and who has no aspirations of becoming one" (p. 19). Despite this confession, he sets out to critique what he takes to be modern and post-modern hermeneutical models, specifically the idea of preunderstanding, which he believes lies behind most of the problems in biblical interpretation and indeed in evangelicalism today.

The critique begins in chapter 2. Thomas argues that instead of accepting any concept of preunderstanding (which, he claims, confuses him), God communicates objectively in Scripture, and thus, "neutral objectivity" is possible because of the Holy Spirit. (This theme is also discussed by Brian A. Shealy in chapter 7 as the confusion of application with interpretation.) The contrast of objectivity with non-objectivity is shown in chapter 3 in an examination of eschatology, especially 2 Thess 2, where several reformed scholars, a number of translations, and many older mainline scholars are critiqued in favor of a dispensational approach. (Unfortunately, none of the scholars he cites is noted for his use of new hermeneutical insights.) This debate is a case of reformed/liberal verses dispensational, all cast as a discussion of exegesis rather than hermeneutics.

Chapter 4 claims dynamic equivalent translations are an example of the new hermeneutic; thus, only formal equivalent translations are appropriate. One reason for this is the uniqueness of biblical language, which is Thomas's point in chapter 8, where he definitively rejects "modern linguistics." The rejection of linguistics is related to chapter 5's rejection of general revelation in the sense of the integration of biblical insights with other truth and in particular with their integration with psychology.

For Thomas, all truth is not God's truth. If Scripture can be studied objectively and the integration of other disciplines is counterproductive, then one reaches the conclusions of chapter 6 that there is only one meaning in a text, and thus, most contemporary works on evangelical biblical interpretation or hermeneutics are mistaken. This is also the case when it comes to the use of the OT in the New (chapter 9). Walter Kaiser is wrong, for there is indeed a sensus plenior, but it is an "inspired sensus plenior" occasioned by Israel's rejection of their King. It is certainly not a method that is reproducible today. No mention is made of its similarity to contemporary Jewish exegetical methodologies.

Given Thomas's analysis of the special nature of biblical language, it is not surprising that chapters 10 and 11 reject genre analysis (a lot of issues in biblical criticism are gathered under that heading) in the interpretation of both the gospels and Revelation. This leads to part two of the book, where Thomas in successive chapters rejects progressive dispensationalism, evangelical feminism (a chapter actually written by Paul Felix), evangelical missiology, the dating of Revelation on the basis of the 7 kings, and open theism. All are equally the fruit of what he calls "the new hermeneutic."

Unfortunately, we gain only bits and pieces of the hermeneutic Thomas espouses. This is not a book that could be given to a student to assist him or her in learning traditional methodology. For that Thomas refers us to Milton S. Terry's Biblical Hermeneutics (1885) and Bernard Ramm's Protestant Biblical Interpretation (1970). This present work would be more accurately entitled What is Wrong with Evangelical Hermeneutics Today.

One would wish that, having cleared away what he considers to be false, Thomas had then given a well-illustrated presentation of how to do biblical interpretation. While at times he seems to start in this direction, we never receive a systematic presentation. This is even more unfortunate because it is clear that for Thomas, biblical language is special language unlike other human language. Thus, its words need diachronic study to get their "full meaning," its Gospels are unlike other historical works of their period, and its verses have a single meaning, but may change meanings under divine inspiration. This means the principles I may use in understanding contemporary languages (and I do teach and preach in more than one language) do not apply. A systematic presentation of his theory of interpretation is indeed called for.

This book is not in essence about hermeneutics. Thomas is really attacking most contemporary evangelical scholarship under the guise of hermeneutics. Many of those he attacks (e.g. Leon Morris) wrote in a decidedly modern, historicist vein. They wrote before the discussions of linguistics and postmodernism that arose in the 1990s. In those cases, Thomas is attacking exegetical decisions by rather traditional (but reformed) interpreters. In doing this, he mixes people coming from various positions so that a significant amount of guilt by association results.