Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation

by Jens Zimmermann

In this study, Jens Zimmermann aims to recount the history of Protestant hermeneutics while taking seriously some of the issues raised by contemporary critical thought. He begins by considering some of the basic principles of Protestant biblical interpretation from the Reformation era, focusing particularly on the work of Martin Luther and Matthias Flacius. In the second section, he offers an appraisal of postmodern philosophical thought and its secular nature. Zimmerman concludes that while there is some validity to the issues raised by contemporary philosophers, a Trinitarian approach offers a viable method for recovering a theory of interpretation that is both philosophically sound and theologically informed.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy

352 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2004

About the author

Jens Zimmermann (b. 1965) is a Christian philosopher and theologian who specializes in hermeneutics and the philosophical and theological roots of humanism. He is currently J.I. Packer Chair of Theology at Regent College.

Reviews

[Mark]

I'm not the same person I was when I started this book about half a year ago, so it's hard for me to review the text accurately. At the start, it set my head on fire, but physical sickness and spiritual confusion pulled me off the path. I've come to the conclusion that though what Zimmermann says is important, the argument itself is woefully underdeveloped. Yes, he makes some assertions which I violently agree with, but he spends all his time making assertions without backing them up with primary sources.

For example, the chapter on Luther was at times excellent, but it's hard to know how Christocentric and incarnational Luther's works are without diving into more depth and looking at more examples. As it stands, we basically get no examples. We also get no explanation of why Zimmermann focuses on early-modern theologians like Luther and Calvin rather than the Church Fathers. He laments this oversight in the introduction, but fails to remedy it in any meaningful way. The real question is how he could have missed the ball so badly, how he could have called men "premodern" who were so obviously early-modern.

This isn't to say that Luther dispensed with his premodern inheritances, but Zimmermann's misplaced focus requires he overlook the many places that Luther is at least proto-modern, such as his demands for universal literacy, which as we all know has been a dire mistake. This is true in a strictly theological sense (most people are dangerously incompetent interpreters) and in a more general sense (most people are meant to be peasants tilling ground and following orders, not making their own lives and being their own person).

Still, I can't get myself to disagree with Zimmermann's main thesis, namely that the fundamentalist literalism we're besieged by today is far from premodern, but rather crypto-modern. Likewise, the correlative of the compatibility of pre- and post-modern hermeneutics as popularized by James K. A. Smith echoes nicely here, albeit tempered by the important caveat that Christ is the only way to understand anything. This is so self-evidently true to me I need not elaborate, but since you (hopefully) don't share my psychosis, I'll explain.

Basically, the Aristotelian "god" of Allah is too-comprehensible; the trinity is just the level of incomprehensibility we need, plus the incarnation, that missing link between God and Man. Nothing in life, in theology, in philosophy, or in interpretation is comprehensible outside of the revelation of Christ, the God-man. As Augustine wrote, "I believe in order to understand;" faith and trust are prerequisites to the always-already partial comprehension we're capable of.

And yes, I understand that it's scary to hear things which grate against the concept of certainty we're drowning in, but it's not hermeneutically tenable, just as it wasn't tenable for Luther to think that scripture had one obvious surface meaning. The fact that he was shocked by the different factions which emerged tempts me to say he didn't actually understand hermeneutics. For, as Zimmermann points out, the church fathers fostered multiplicity of meanings, such as the four modes of Origen. But the thing that worries me is that, once again, maybe in an attempt to portray a unified front, Zimmermann fails to acknowledge when Luther and Calvin fall short of this premodern multiplicity. Zimmermann remarks that "Luther's sense of the scriptures...allowed him to replace the hitherto dominant fourfold medieval exegetical method with his famous law-gospel dialectic." The problem with this replacement is that it dismantled a holistic approach which balanced the past (old testament typology), the present (ethical concerns), and the future (eschatology) with a trauma response that over-corrected Catholic guilt-mongering.

I understand why he did it, but it should have stayed as more of a hermeneutical reform rather than a wholesale replacement. Thus it's debatable whether Luther practiced what he preached here: "Luther warns interpreters who think they have mastered the word of God that they thereby implicitly consider themselves judges of the word rather than being under the word." The awful irony, of course, is that Luther used a smokescreen (never formally writing a systematic theology) in order to convince people that he still left room for mystery. He and the theologians who followed him, however, left room in name only; in reality, everything is subjugated to the law/gospel dialectic, which ultimately is hyper-fixated on justification. Romans struck Luther, and rightfully so, but in a typically modern way, he let bias toward one part override the whole.

The oddest part is that though it is indirectly Christological, it's more accurate to label Luther's hermeneutics as "conscience-driven-justification-comfort"; Luther's earthy German writing style probably put more of the Christology on top as window dressings, rather than starting there. For Luther is a Pauline theologian more than one who starts with the gospels, which complicates Zimmermann's claim that the incarnation is the center of Luther's hermeneutics. Yes, Luther's fixation on "the Word of God" is twofold, both Christ and the literal scriptures themselves, but they're both only ever means to an end to calm his overwrought Catholic conscience. Thus, if we're being honest, Lutheran theology is at root a comforting hug rather than the strict, "obvious" truth of the "clear" scriptures.

With all this in mind, Zimmermann should not have used the Reformation theologians, who were primarily focused on healing their own Catholic traumas (Calvin and Luther alike), and should have rather focused on theologians whose theology truly is incarnation-centric, such as Tertullian, Athanasius, and others.

Besides this, all we got was a "correction" of secular philosophical hermeneutics (a la Gadamer and other guys I haven't read); I'm not qualified to state whether his "corrections" truly are such, or whether they're yet more biased reframings (as he did with the one author I'm proficient in, namely Luther). God knows. I think that he should have either focused on a single early author who actually was incarnation-centered, or he should have done a wider survey of more theologians (to build a cumulative case). As it stands, his odd choice of the two largest names in the Reformation makes this a lopsided and ultimately weak litany of assertions, rather than a clear, well-developed argument.

Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy it, I did, but I was also frustrated. But I'm also split in half, given that the Mark reviewing this isn't the same as the one who started the book, and won't be the same Mark another year from now. The most apropos part of this is that my changes were prodded on by embodied trauma, namely a few close calls where (my body felt like) I was going to die. It rewired something within me and without me; it has helped me to see through some of the "objective" claims of others who are little more than their own biased trauma responses. Which, of course you could accuse me of the same, but I'm impervious to that because I'm being up-front with my trauma responses, rather than trying to dress them up as objective truth. Since everything really is subjective truth, as understood through the subjective-objective bridge of being that is Christ.

[Christopher G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jens Zimmerman traces the progression of philosophical and theological hermeneutics through the premodern, modern, and postmodern eras by examining the conclusions of the most influential contributors of each period. From the premodern emphasis on relationship with God, hermeneutics has now progressed to a godless ontology with an emphasis on self knowledge with subjective understanding. Contrary to the current evangelical belief that postmodern hermeneutics is superior to the methods and conclusions of premodern and modern scholars, Zimmerman advocates for a return to premodern hermeneutics and its relational, trinity-centric focus.

Considering the scope of the subject matter and the numerous individuals that Zimmerman drew from, the book has been condensed very well into the essential concepts that influenced change in hermeneutical thought through the progression of time. However, due to the number of philosophical views that Zimmerman draws from and makes reference to, it becomes difficult to keep them organized, especially with a limited background in philosophical studies.

I have a limited background in philosophy so I found this to be a challenge to read and assess. It might be deserving of five stars if my overall comprehension of the material was better on the first reading.