Enthroning the Interpreter: Dangerous Trends in Law and Theology, Part III -- By: Andrew M. Woods

Journal: Conservative Theological Journal
Volume: CTJ 08:25 (Dec 2004)
Article: Enthroning the Interpreter: Dangerous Trends in Law and Theology, Part III
Author: Andrew M. Woods


Enthroning the Interpreter: Dangerous Trends in Law and Theology, Part III

Andy Woods

Doctoral Student
Dallas Theological Seminary

The first article in this three-part series showed that proper legal and biblical interpretation involves pursuing authorial intent through the mechanism of a literal hermeneutic. The underlying philosophy behind such an approach is to dethrone the interpreter’s personal ideological or theological preferences and instead to enthrone what is objectively revealed in the text. In other words, the goal of applying a literal hermeneutic is to transfer the authority in the interpretive process away from the dynamic and subjective imagination of the interpreter and instead toward the objective standard of the unchanging text. Part two of this series traced an erosion of this time-honored principle in the area of constitutional interpretation. Because modern judicial philosophy determines the Constitution’s meaning based upon what the judge says it means rather than based upon what the document actually says, the true authority in the interpretive process has transferred from the text to the interpreter.

Sadly, as will be demonstrated in this final article, a similar shift in authority is also detectable in the field of evangelical, biblical interpretation. In the legal arena, this trend is not necessarily discernible in all facets of legal interpretation but is particularly noticeable in the field of constitutional interpretation. Similarly, although this same trend is not necessarily apparent in all aspects of biblical interpretation, it is particularly observable in the way many modern interpreters approach the subjects of origins and eschatology. Thomas Ice offers an explanation as to why origins and eschatology are the two areas where modern evangelicals are most reluctant to apply a consistent, literal approach:

It is instructive that in the two major areas where we creatures have to take God’s Word, and it alone as the basis for knowledge in that area, it is exactly these two areas that are under attack from much of evangelical scholarship. These two areas are: first, what happened in the ancient past, when there were few or no creatures to observe events; and second, what will happen in the future. The past and the future are the main areas where we must take God’s Word about what happened or will happen. Only God was there and I have no problem trusting His account of what has occurred and what will take place.1

Substituting Reason for Revelation

Forty-six years ago Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost warned that abandoning the application of a consistent literal herm...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()