Redemptive Historical Method

From Tim Keller - Chapter 1 - Expounding Christ

"There are two basic approaches to discovering the unity of the Bible in an effort to answer the question: "what does the (whole) Bible teach about....?" One approach is the Systematic-Theological method (STM) which deals with the Scripture topically. It organizes what it says by asking: "what does the whole Bible teach about God? sin? the Holy Spirit? the Church? marriage and family? Prayer?" It looks at every text on a topic and synthesizes them into a set of statements or principles. The Westminster Confession of Faith. for example, is largely the product of the STM.

Another approach is the 'Biblical-Theological' or (better) 'Redemptive-Historical' method (RHM) which deals with the Scripture historicallv. It deals "Diachronically" rather than "synchronically" with the Bible. It sees the Bible less as a depository of individual pieces of data that must be organized and summarized and more as a history of God's salvation--a redemption-history. It notices, for example that the Bible shows little or not concern for historical events that the world would consider momentous. Instead. it only concerned with those events that reveal the unfolding saving words and actions of God. (e.g. How the 'biographies' of Jesus--the gospels--spend up to 50% on the last week of his life.) The Bible is
not primarily not a source of information about how to raise a family or handle money but a redemption-history.

Thus the RHM organizes what the Bible teaches by looking less at category-topics and more at 'longitudinal themes' that re-appear in each historical epoch and thus asks: "how does creation, the kingdom the temple/presence of God, the people of God, the covenant, the promises, the atonement-develop in every age and climax in the work of Christ?" (There is no ultimate reason why these two approaches have to contradict. but we will look more at the relationship of these two methods below.)

Bryan Chapell uses the acorn to illustrate the RHM. If to you I describe the acorn just as it is(it is 1 inch long, brown, has two parts) without explaining what the acorn has the potential to grow into(there is an entire tree within it!) I have not helped you to understand the acorn. If I describe Moses or David as men of faith but do not show you how they point to the ultimate Moses or David then I haven't really helped you understand these men or their stories.

Summary. In other words. the RHM believes that the purpose of every part of the Bible and therefore every text is to bear witness to who Christ is and what he came to do. Every text is about Jesus.

RATIONALE FOR THE APPROACH
I . The direction of Jesus.
When Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he discovered that they were in despair because their Messiah had been crucified. He responds. "'how slow of heart to believe all the prophets have spoken!'... and beginning with Moses and all the Prophets he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Luke 24:25-29) Later he appears to his disciples in the upper room. and we are told "He said to them This is what 1 told you while 1 was still with you: everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. ' Then he opened their minds so they could understand the
Scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45). Jesus blames the confusion of the disciples on their inability to see that all the Old Testament is "all" about him and his salvation. Another place where Jesus makes this same assertion is Jn 5:31-47. Jesus says that the Father has testified to him in the Scriptures (v.39). But he confronts his hearers with how they do not understand the Scriptures' testimony. He says, for example, that they think they follow Moses, but "Moses wrote about me." (v.46). The Law of Moses can only be understood as it points to Christ.

2. The example of the apostles.
The apostolic writers are famously 'Christ-centered' in their interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul and the writer of the Epistles to the Hebrews. for example, continuously quote Psalms as the words of Christ--and not just 'Messianic' or 'Royal' Psalms where the speaker is some clearly Messianic figure. For example, Hebrews 1 : 14 quotes Psalm 9 1 : 1 1 - 12-"For he will command his angels concerning you.. SO that you will not strike yourfoot against a stone." But
when we as readers look at Psalm 91 we see absolutely nothing that would indicate the subject is Jesus or some Messianic figure. How can the Hebrews author know that this Psalm is about Jesus? Some would say--'he was inspired by the Holy Spirit'. Of course that is true, but that begs the question. Though all Biblical writers were inspired as they said everything wrote, the question is--did it require supernatural knowledge to know everything they wrote? For example, they were inspired when they said that 'Jesus rose on the third day', but did it take divine revelation to know that it happened? Were there not lots of others. 'uninspired' Christians who knew this and preached this as well?

Now the question is--did it take supernatural knowledge to know that Psalm 91 was about Jesus? Perhaps. But it is just as likely that the early church knew that everything in the Scriptures was about Jesus. Therefore both apostles and everyone else were able to interpret the whole Bible Christologically. What we have in these New Testament usages of the Old Testament then shows us how the entire early church read the Bible. It gives us warrant and direction to read the Bible in the same way.

The gospel writers also quote passages from the Psalms and Prophets that clearly show they-read the words of the Scripture as being all about Jesus. Peter writes: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and the circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow....They spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit..into which things even angels long to look." (1Peter 1:10-12) he shows that the 'Spirit of Christ' in the prophets was pointing to the person and work of Christ in their writings.

So it is not likely that Jesus or Peter are simply talking about isolated explicit predictions of the Messiah (cf. Gen.3: 15; Is.9:6; 53). That wouldn't do justice to the comprehensiveness of the language employed. Jesus says that "all the Scriptures" point to him and that each part--the Law, the Prophets. and the Wisdom literature--are about him (Luke 24:44-45). It is particularly interesting that he would say that the 'Law" is about him! We might understand how he could say that the prophetic literature was about him-but the Law? What we have here is that all the major themes. major figures, major genres, and major story lines are reflective of and
fulfilled in him.

SUM: Every part of the Bible about the historical unfolding revelation and accomplishment of the gospel salvation through Jesus Christ. Paul shows in Galatians 3 that there is a complete unity in the Bible. There is a story within all the Bible stories. God is redeeming a people for himself by grace in the face of human rebellion and human desire for a religion of good works.

3. The problem of 'moralism'.
The ultimate reason that we expound Christ in every passage is because that's the truth! The whole Bible is about Christ. That is the 'theological-hermeneutical' reason for the RHM.

But there is a 'theological-pastoral' reason as well. Bryan Chapel1 points out in a taped message that we are to preach Christ to 'complete' the hearers (Col 1:28: NIV-'perfect is better rendered 'complete'.) This means that our preaching assumes fallenness and incompleteness in the listener. Chapell goes on to say that any sermon that does not focus on Christ and his saving work. but only provides 'marks of a good church' or 'marks of a strong family' or 'how to pray' is to provide a 'sub-text' message that the listeners can complete themselves or make
themselves acceptable to God. Even if the preacher does not say that. even if the preacher says many true things about the text--if the preacher does not put the text into the overall message of salvation by grace and the finished work of Christ. the listener will automatically hear through a moralistic 'grid'. A sermon that only tells listeners how they must live without putting that into the context of the gospel gives them the impression that they are complete enough to pull themselves together if they really try hard.

Any exposition of a text that does not 'get to Christ'but just 'explains Biblical principles' will be a 'synagogue sermon' that merely exhorts people to exert their wills to live according to a particular pattern. Instead of the life-giving gospel. the sermon offers just one more ethical paradigm to crush the listeners."