In “Future Israel”, dr. Barry Horner challenges Christian anti-Judaism. Following are some fragments of chapter 7, Israel and Christian Anti-Judaic Hermeneutics Today. Horner offers guidelines for what he calls a Judeo-centric way of reading and explaining the Bible. He briefly describes the four methods of interpretation explored by classical Jewish tradition, that are also part of the world of the New Testament.
A Christocentric Hermeneutic for the Hebrew Scriptures
… I maintain that there is a right Christocentric method of interpretation that is relevant to all of Scripture. In the light of modern supercessionism, this hermeneutic especially addresses both the OT and the NT according to the unifying principle of Judeo-centricity. In other words, as the Scriptures of the whole Bible are mainly of Hebrew origin, and the Savior was Hebrew along with the founding church, then we should never cease to keep this Hebrew perspective before us. The Hebrew character of OT Scripture ought not to be regarded, in its literal form, as passé, and therefore the object of reinterpretation by the NT Gentile Christian.…
This does not simply involve being acquainted with extra-biblical Jewish sources but with that Jewish hermeneutic with which the apostles almost unconsciously breathed. This is especially to be the case when Gentiles desire to understand the Word of God. When the OT is quoted in the NT by a Hebrew author, we anticipate his use of an established Hebrew hermeneutic, not necessarily so familiar to the Gentile mind, though certainly not some supposed new, superseding, and radical hermeneutic. … When the NT Jewish author quoted the OT, sometimes with a methodology that is not following the exact literal meaning, it is presumptuous to conclude that this usage nullifies the possibility of the original passage retaining literal validity. A more Hebrew based hermeneutic is preferred that remains based on a literal understanding of the text. I echo David Stern’s comment that “the New Testament is a Jewish book, written by Jews in a Jewish context,” as well as his explanation of the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are:
(1) P’shat (“simple”) – the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.
(2) Remez (“hint”) – wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.
(3) Drash or midrash (“search”) – an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis – reading one’s own thoughts into the text – as opposed to exegesis which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can cuide to truths not directly related to the text at all.
(4) Sod (“secret”) – a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like … The implied presupposition is that god invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters.
These four methods of working a text are remembered by the Hebrew word “PaRDeS”, an acronym formed from the initials; it means “orchard” or “garden.”
Michael Vlach points to the same four categories, as referenced by Richard N. Longenecker, that would have been common knowledge to the authors of the NT.
In conclusion, we return to the fundamental character of the Reformed eschatological hermeneutic, here severally represented, which so vehemently disallows a diversity within the unity of Jesus Christ’s consummate kingdom. I believe that for reasons more philosophic than logical, more historic than biblical, more systematic than exegetical, there is a tenacious refusal to allow a both-and situation for Israel and the Gentile nations. Indeed there has come about a Gentile fear for the perpetuation of Judaic influence on Christianity, as if the church at Antioch should supersede the church at Jerusalem – though Acts 15 indicates how invalid such a proposal is. The ethical results in this regard have not been inconsequential. It is as if history dominates, that is, Augustinianism reigns and holds exegesis in captivity. But history also indicates that in the realm of eschatology, Augustine was terribly wrong and, so are those who follow in his eschatological steps regarding the disenfranchisement of national Israel. In this particular realm of divine truth, much of Reformed exegesis has been driven more by a historic hermeneutic rather than the principle of semper reformandum, “always reforming”. After all, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Farbarin, Bavinck, and Vos could not possibly be wrong! Or could they? They are all part of the same eschatological lineage that peers through essentially Augustinian lenses. If this patristic root, with its unsavoury eschatology, does not result in the ripening of its fruit through the sweetening of sovereign grace, its continuance and bitter influence, after the manner of centuries of church history, will only result in branches that bring forth tart produce during this twenty-first century.
Fore more on ‘Future Israel’ see: www.futureisraelministries.org
 D. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 13.
 Ibid., 11-12.
 M.J. Vlach, “The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supercessionism” (Ph.D. diss., southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004), 176n. R.N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), xxxiii, 14-35.