Resources Critiquing The Redemptive-Historical (Christocentric) Hermeneutic

Posted on by Abiding Foundations

As Christians we keep hearing from the pulpits that the redemptive-historical (christocentric) hermeneutic is the proper way to interpret the scriptures (hermeneutics -> homiletics), and that this is the method that Jesus and the Apostles used. We are told that we need to interpret the bible in light of the New Testament and this method then becomes the lens by which we read the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Not only that, our preaching should be subject to a “christocentric” approach where Christ is read into the Old Testament and every text is subject to Christ. Every pericope then must be seen in light of Christ or the gospel to be functionally relevant to the audience being preached to.

As a Christian, I take serious issue with this approach–the hermeneutic & the result of preaching, the homiletic–since from my perspective it’s an egregious hermeneutic that is read into scripture, rather than derived from the scripture, and it’s an attack on the perspicuity of the Old Testament which makes the meaning of the Old Testament essentially unknowable to the original audience, and thereby undercuts the principle of authorial intent.

When we do biblical exegesis our goal is to determine what the author intended, and once we have determined what the author intended we can conclude from this that it is what God also intended, since God’s intent is not different from the author’s intent. Biblical exegetes are attempting to find the singular meaning of a passage.

Christocentricism, on the other hand, claims that we cannot understand the Old Testament without the New Testament, or without Christ. I am sorry, this just won’t do. Christians can read the Old Testament perfectly fine without needing to superimpose Christ into the various Old Testament books, just as Israelites could read and understand the Law, the Prophets, the Writings without a “christocentric” hermeneutic. The literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic was visible already in the Old Testament period with Ezra (Neh 8:8), what was stated in the Law was explained (exegeted) and understanding was achieved, all apart from an appeal to the New Testament and to Christ.

Eric Davis correctly observes several potential pitfalls of this hermeneutical methodology:

“Here are nine cautions regarding the “Christ-in-every-passage” approach to the OT

1.) The christocentric hermeneutic approach to the Old Testament risks violating the authorial intent of the text.

2.) The “Christ-in-every-passage” approach risks devaluing the Old Testament

3.) The christocentric hermeneutic approach to the Old Testament threatens the perspicuity of Scripture.

4.) A “Christ-in-every-passage” approach to the Old Testament misunderstands the process of biblical change in the soul.

5.) The “Christ-in-every-passage” approach to the Old Testament violates the meaning of Luke 24:27.

6.) A christocentric hermeneutic is problematic because New Testament writers did not interpret the Old Testament in such a way.

7.) The christocentric hermeneutic risks imposing the climax event of the redemptive story onto every event leading up to the climax of the story.

8.) A christocentric hermeneutic is unnecessary because Christ is the source of the Old Testament Scriptures.

9.) A christocentric hermeneutic risks isolating one’s understanding of Scripture to the second Person of the Trinity.”

With that said, here are several important resources that engage with and rebut the redemptive-historical hermeneutic:

Unknown's avatar

Published by Abiding Foundations

Leave a comment