Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 144:574 (Apr 1987)
Article: Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller’s Law-Gospel Continuum
Author: Wayne G. Strickland

BSac 144:574 (Apr 87) p. 181

Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller’s Law-Gospel Continuum

Wayne G. Strickland

Associate Professor of Systematic Theology
Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland

Two scholars, studying the same biblical text and demonstrating equal proficiency in exegesis, often come to different or even contradictory conclusions. This raises the question, Why do the decisions of various scholars differ so prodigiously? Part of the answer may be discovered in the discussion of preunderstanding in hermeneutics. As Turner points out, “Where exegetes fail to share a common understanding of a text…they do so either because they disagree over philological or historical data or because they do not share a common pre-understanding.”1

Some may suggest that because of preunderstanding, objectivity is impossible in hermeneutics. Yet the key to maintaining objectivity in the interpretive process while also recognizing the validity of preunderstanding is to recognize that the preunderstanding of the interpreter is not to be regarded as final.2 It must remain open to revision and modification by the text in order to avoid eisegesis. The biblical text must be the final authority over

BSac 144:574 (Apr 87) p. 182

preunderstanding. Otherwise the interpreter is guilty of manipulating the text to say what he wants it to communicate. So it is helpful to examine the preunderstanding behind a person’s interpretation of the text to determine if his preunderstanding is valid.

The purpose of this article is to apply the role of preunderstanding to the law-gospel issue, focusing on the solution offered by Daniel Fuller. It will be argued that his law-gospel continuum is due partially to his preunderstanding. The first step is to exam-ine the tension in the law-gospel issue created by Fuller’s law-gospel construct. Then the reasons for the tension that relate to his preunderstanding will be discussed, and an alternate solution will be offered that eliminates the tension and reflects a more plausible preunderstanding.

Identifying the Tension: Law-Gospel Issue

As Fuller correctly observes, most evangelical theologians affirm that Paul made a clear distinction between law and gospel.3 Since the Reformation, the orthodox position of the Protestant church has been never to mix law and gospel.4 Despite this, Fuller argues that law and gospel are in a continuum:

I realized that if the law is, indeed, a law of faith, enjoining only the obedience of faith and the works that ...