Redemptive-Historical Method

Broader Implications of the Approach

by Tim Keller

Two Basic 'Theological Frameworks'.

Richard Lints, in The Fabric of Theology (Eerdmans, 1993) points out that what we have been calling 'Redemption-Historical' exegesis is more than just a way to interpret texts. He believes that one very significant difference among evangelicals lies between those who organize doctrines into a 'redemptive historical” framework and those who organize doctrines along the lines of a 'systematic-topical” framework. (See pp.259-290).

The first framework (which he connects with the names of Vos, Kline, and Gaffin) sees the basic theological structure of Scripture as a series of historical epochs in which God progressively reveals more and more of his redemptive purposes in Christ through successive covenants (Creation. Abrahamic. Mosaic. Christ-inaugurated. Christ-consummated).

The second framework (which he connects with the names of Hodge, Berkhof, and Erickson) sees the basic framework of Scripture as a series of logical categories or subject headings around which the varied texts of Scriptures are organized to produce doctrines (God, Man, Christ, Justification, Sanctification. Glorification).

What is the difference? The traditional teaching of the Reformed seminaries over the last 40 years has been basically correct--the RHM and STM are 'symbiotically related'. On the one hand, the systematics-student should study every Biblical text in its redemptive-historical context before doing topical-synthesis. Many conventional systematic-topics can be taken up and given new life through Biblical-theological treatment. For example, Harvie Conn did a Biblical-theological study of 'church growth', tracing the theme of 'multiplication' from the creation mandate through the whole Bible. On the other hand, if the RHM resists Systematic Theology too much we may not really have a unified Bible. We have to be able to answer the question: what is the authoritative Biblical teaching on this subject?

Having said that, the two approaches, practically speaking, tend to produce two somewhat different 'mindsets' when it comes to reading the Scripture. Lints argues that the redemptive-historical model (RHM) is better than the systematic-topical model (STM) for thinking about the Bible. John Murray speaks of the 'tendency to abstraction" of the STM. The tendency to dehistoricize and to arrive at 'timeless", topically oriented universals. ("Systematic Theology" in The New Testament Student and Theology, J.H.Skilton, ed. P&R 1976). RHM, on the other hand focuses on God's special revelation not primarily as 'naked information” but primarily as God's activity in history. But if this is true, then these different approaches will effect preaching and ministry in general.

Theological Frameworks Compared

a. The RHM gives us a dynamic view of our place in redemptive history. The RHM tells that we are now in a particular period of redemptive history (between the first and second coming of Christ). This is the period of the 'already-but-not-yet" of the kingdom of God, which sets us apart from the epoch previous to and following this one. The STM model has little concept of the all-pervasiveness of the kingdom of God. It tends to see the kingdom mainly in terms of one of the traditional 'millennial' positions.

The massive importance of the 'already-but-not-yet-kingdom' for both faith and practice is largely missed by those steeped in the STM approach. It tends to think of Biblical truth in a-historical categories of doctrine which we now have to 'apply" to our lives today. It tends to rely mainly on 'correctness" or technique ('5 principles for overcoming worryw). The RHM avoids over optimism or pessimism or legalism by focusing always on the dynamic kingdom-epoch lifestyle we live out now. The City of God and the City of Man are present realities. Christ has died, risen, and ascended has put us in a particular, current, dynamic relationship to God, our sin, our past, the Spirit, the world, and to the assembly of heaven itself. It tells us about this new relationship and status we have now, and how to live out as the people of God in this entire epoch. This is a far more “organic” way to think out Christianity.

John Stott, in a very interesting and easy-to-understand chapter called "The Now and the Not Yet" in The Contemporary Christian (IVP. 1992) shows what a powerful effect this theological category has on our practice. This understanding of our place in redemptive history keeps us from fundamentalism (the 'not yet Christians"), Pentecostalism (the 'already" Christians), and Liberalism (in some ways too 'not yet" and in other ways too 'already"). I t keeps us from over - or under-discipline. from over- or under-emphasis on evangelism or social concern, from over-optimism or under-optimism about revival, and so on. A-historical (STM) understandings of the Bible lead constantly to these extremes. By the way, Jonathan Edwards noted these same three enemies of true revival--Dead orthodoxy, Enthusiasm, and Heterodoxy.

b. The RHM gives us a more Biblical and less 'western" framework. Harvie Conn in Eternal Word and Changing Worlds (Zondervan. 1984) points out that the highly rational, scientific approach of STM is difficult for people of non-Western cultures to enjoy or grasp. Many are now pointing out that many of the formulators of STM were unwittingly shaped and affected by the Enlightenment, its detached rationality and its mistrust of history. Harvie (and Rick) note that the RHM gives much more weight to the fact that the Bible is filled with narrative. The gospel itself is a true story, not a set of "principles" or "laws". The STM approach has 'de-storied' the gospel. Harvie also points out that RHM understands that all God's truth is covenantal truth, never abstract from history and life. (See pp.225-234). Thus preaching and teaching from the RHM tends to be much less pietistic and abstract from life. All of this means that RHM is a vastly better vehicle for spreading the gospel through and to all people groups.

c. The RHM gives us a more corporate and less individualistic approach to ministry. The RHM understands that the goal of salvation history is not simply a 'right relationship' with God and live in heaven forever. The goal of redemption is really “re-creation”. God's saving purposes culminate in a new creation, not a disembodied eternal state. The gospel is not that we get to escape earth into heaven, but that heaven is "comes down" to transform the earth. The church then, is not simply an aggregation of people who help one another find God. but it is called to be in this world a sign of the coming new creation. We are to embody the 'new humanity that Christ is creating.

All of this drastically undermines the pietistic, individualistic, privatistic Christianity that can be the result of the STM approach. While the STM approach points us more to how we as individuals get peace with God and 'live right', the RHM framework calls us to live our lives out as a 'counter-culture', a new nation, in which our business practices, race relations, artistic expressions, family life, etc., show the world what humanity could be like under the Lordship of Christ. And the RHM emphasis on 'new creation' calls us to be concerned for the social and material world, since God's ultimate salvation will not only redeem the soul but the body and the physical world as well.

d. The RHM gives a much more relevant approach to 'post-modern' times. This point is closely connected to the previous one. "Post-modem" times are characterized by a rejection of the Enlightenment worship of rationality and technique, and is much more devoted to narrative and story as ways to find meaning. Also, post-modernity rejects the Enlightenment's emphasis on the individual and stresses the importance of community. As we have just seen, the RHM shows us all those resources in Biblical theology that the STM approach has tended to overlook. It breaks the Bible into stages of a Story--the story of Jesus and his salvation—while the STM breaks the Bible into logical categories. More than that, the RHM actually puts us into the story, showing us our place and stage in the unfolding of the kingdom of God. The RHM approach also shows concern for the regeneration of human community and even the physical environment, not just the individual, interior happiness. In all these ways, RHM is much more relevant to post-modern sensibilities.

e. The RHM gives us a more Christ-centered understanding of the Bible. The RHM sees the purpose of each epoch of redemptive history as being the progressive revealing of Christ. God could have poured our judgment on mankind in the Garden, therefore the only reason there is any history is because God has purposed to send his Son into the world, to pour out judgment on him and thereby bring salvation. Jesus is the only reason there is human history, and therefore he is goal of human history. Thus everything God says and does in history explain and prepare for the salvation of his Son. The STM, on the other hand, will examine the Law, the prophets, and history of Abraham, Moses, David, etc. for information about the various doctrinal topics--what we learn about how to live, what to believe. But the RHM sees every story and law and piece of wisdom literature as pointing to Christ and his work. Preaching and teaching from an STM framework tends to be much more moralistic and legalistic.

f. The RHM gives us a more organic way of reading Biblical texts. The RHM works at understanding the differences between stages in redemptive history, while the STM largely ignores such study. But many disputes over the application of the Old Testament laws are really based on a lack of understanding of the role which the Mosaic regulations played in that time in redemptive history (i.e. how they helped us look to and prepare for God's coming salvation) and of how that role is fulfilled in Christ.

Maybe even more fundamentally, the RHM really leads us to see the very purpose of each Biblical passage differently. We have said that RHM understands God's revelation never comes in the form of textbook type information. but in the form of covenant. Why? Because the purpose of God's truth is never to merely inform. but to know God in a relationship of love and service. For example, if we read Genesis 1-2 with an STM mind-set, expecting "naked information" about how the world was created, we will see it differently than those who read with a RHM mind-set, expecting knowledge of who are Creator is and how we are to relate to him and to his creation.

Concluding Note: Do not read the above as pitting Systematic Theology per se against 'Biblical Theology'. There have been many proponents of the Redemptive-Historical approach that virtually deny the ability to do coherent Systematics at all. This is going too far by far. And such a denial ultimately undermines the concept of a single divine author of the whole Bible.