Monday's Musing: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics
Today's musing comes from Graeme Goldsworthy's newest book which is not available in the US until March, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Biblical-theological foundations and principles. The following excerpts come from chapter 3, "Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics" (I've inserted a few questions of my own to help you interact with the text).
For hermeneutics to be gospel-centred, it must be based on the person of Jesus Christ. That is, the person and work of Christ are at the heart of our hermeneutics (58).
What, then, is the gospel?
The gospel is the event (or the proclamation of that event) of Jesus Christ that begins with his incarnation and earthly life, and concludes with his death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. This historical event is interpreted by God as his preordained programme for the salvation of the world (59).The gospel centres on what God did for us in the incarnate Christ in order to save us from sin, the devil and death. Its goal is the new creation where the people of God redeemed by Christ will enjoy the presence of God for eternity. The gospel is what we must believe in order to be saved. To believe the gospel is to put one's trust and confidence in the person and work of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. To preach the gospel is faithfully to proclaim that historical event, along with the God-given interpretation of that event (58-59).
How important is it for preachers to understand what is and what is not the gospel when they enter the pulpit?
It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruit of the gospel (regeneration[1], conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel. If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousands years ago, it is not the gospel (59).[1] - Regeneration is a result of the gospel in that it is possible only because of the historic work of Christ. This is not the same as saying that it is the result of a person's decision to receive the gospel.
Question for discussion: What might happen if the results of the gospel are preached as if they are the gospel?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Monday's Musing: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://gospelcentered.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/540
1. We fail to awe people with the reality of the Good News itself. Instead, they're more in awe of the results of salvation or some other thing.
2. We preach a man-centered rather than God-centered message. We convince them it's safe to be God-centered because God is man-centered.
3. We call people to faith in repentance and faith, rather than calling them to faith in the Person and finished work of Christ.
4. We teach people how to treasure God's gifts without treasuring God.
Dan,
Thanks for whetting my appetite for the book. I can't wait until March! I think Matt has some good points about the effects of preaching the results of the Gospel rather than the Gospel itself. I think another thing that could happen is an academic view of Christianity that focuses on certain doctrines (justification, sanctification, glorification, etc.) while neglecting the source of the docrtines (the work and person of Christ). I think the doctrines engage the mind and intellect while the work of Christ engages the heart and passions. Pure intellectualism is not authentic Christianity.
Thanks for the post, Dan, and for the comments, Matt
I think Matt sums it up pretty well. I would add that if the results are preached as if they are the gospel, then the gospel is not being preached in its entirety and therefore true conversion can not take place. Conversion can not take place because there is not a proper understanding of what salvation and redemption is really about...the Gospel...the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Can't wait for my copy to arrive!
While I think that I agree with the definition of gospel as defined by Goldsworthy, the question that comes to mind is "How did the writers of Scripture define 'gospel'?" When we see the word gospel in the Bible, does it refer to the Christ-event only? Or does it also encompass the other elements (regeneration, sanctification, etc.)?
I wonder if Goldsworthy, perhaps, has cut the hair a bit too thin in his definition.
But, on the other hand, he might be making another, broader point. In fact, in reading this over again, it seems that Goldsworthy is simply cautioning us to keep the “main thing” (the work of God through Christ in the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection) the center of the “main thing” (the Gospel).
I'm one that doesn't think he's splitting hairs. Jesus himself taught people to distinguish between the Good News and the proper response to that Good News. See Mark 1:15.
I don't think the apostles "define" the Gospel, but they do describe its content. 1 Corinthians 15:1ff is probably the clearest example. And here again, the wonderful blessings of the Gospel are distinguished from the Gospel itself. Saying "by which you are being saved" is probably a reference to sanctification, right? So Paul is saying there is an important distinction, however small, between the Gospel itself and the redemption that results from believing and persevering in the Gospel.
To be sure, what Christ has already accomplished will be applied to our justification, sanctification, adoption, redemption, regeneration, atonement, glorification, etc. But these are results of the Gospel - not to be substituted for the essential message that God’s redemptive, kingdom purposes are fulfilled through the life, death, resurrection, and rule of Jesus Christ, meaning God’s promise of salvation is certain to those who trust in him.
Great topic here! The "Gospel" hermeneutic has a great deal of appeal to me as I see Jesus as the culmination of what God was/is accomplishing.
My question is just for clarification. Would you still follow the standard grammtical/historical method for interpretation and just say that leads you to view everything through the lens of the Gospel? Or are there some other a prioris that I'm not aware of?
To answer your question - what I see most in my area is a focus on Jesus as a means to an end rather than being the end himself. I don't think people purposefully substitute "results" as Gospel but on a practical level that's what happens.