Redemptive-Historical Method

The blog series “Redemptive-Historical Method” is an outgrowth of the “Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World”, by Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney, available on iTunes. These are the notes from the course.

HOW? A CHRISTO-CENTRIC FOCUS

INTRODUCTION

For theological, pastoral, and missiological reasons we should read the Bible as 'Redemption History' and not simply as a body of spiritual and moral information. This means that every part and text of the Bible is part of the 'Big Story' of salvation and attests to God's saving purposes which climax in Jesus Christ. Therefore, every text is 'really about Jesus'. But how do we 'get to Christ', practically speaking, when preaching a text that is not directly about Jesus? How can we actually read each text 'Christologically', with a Christo-centric focus?

The preacher feels this most acutely when preaching from the 3/4 of the Bible called the 'Old Testament'. When most people think of "Preaching Christ" from such a text, they think of doing so by typology. They look in the text for a 'type' of Christ within it. So, for example, we might preach Isaac as a type of the sacrificed son, or David as the type of the warrior-savior, and so on. This practice (as we have seen) is still somewhat controversial, but even if it were granted it would not suffice. Most texts of the Bible do not provide a classic 'type' of Jesus. The vast majority of psalms are not clear and consensus 'Messianic' psalms, for example. So in order to 'get to Christ' preachers may very lamely and artificially tack him on to the end of the sermon (e.g. 'You shouldn't lie, but if you do, through Jesus you can be forgiven.") Or they force him in through finding superficial similarities, which really boil down to allegorizing.

But it is important to see how many different ways there are to 'preach Christ' besides direct typology. Sidney Greidanus lays out a number of 'ways' to preach Christ besides typology in his book “Preaching Christ from the Old Testament”. Goldsworthy too writes:

'The essence of typology is the recognition that within Scripture itself certain events, people, and institutions in biblical history bear a particular relationship to later events, people, or institutions. The relationship is such that the earlier foreshadows the later, and the later fills out or completes the earlier ....[But] I want to suggest that behind –the technical uses [of the term 'typology'].. . there is a principle that is far-reaching in its application. We may refer to this as macro-typology because it indicates that we are not dealing mainly with scattered examples but with a broad pattern ... The typological correspondence is not simply between persons, events, and institution, but between whole epochs of revelation ...”

What does Goldsworthy mean? I believe he means something like the following. (Note: I acknowledge both Goldsworthy and Greidanus' works as the basis for my following summaries and categories:

PREACHING CHRIST - BY INTERPRETIVE: METHOD
One way to prepare to preach with a Christ-centered focus is to ways to identify gospel 'pieces' that only Christ can resolve (themes), receive (law), complete (stories), or fulfill (symbols). If I were you I would create my own collection of ways to preach Christ in these ways from:

E. Clowney The Unfolding Mystery (Presbyterian and Reformed)
S. DeGraaf Promise and Deliverance (Four Volumes-Presbyterian and Reformed)
Carson is editing a series of books on these intercanonical themes.
Alec Motyer's Look to the Rock chooses seven of these redemptive themes and shows how Christ is the fulfillment of each.
See the last section of each chapter in Longman and Dillard's An Introduction to the Old Testament (Zondervan. 1994)
See Christopher J.H.Wright. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (IVP, 1992)

Upcoming posts on this subject will include:
THEME -RESOLUTION. Only Jesus resolves redemptive themes.
LAW- RECEPTION. Only Jesus lets us truly receive the law's requirements.
STORY-COMPLETION. Only Jesus completes the great stories of the Bible.

SYMBOL – FULFILLMENT. If a feature has symbolic significance for the author (symbolizing God's saving activity in some way) then it may be seen as a type of Christ, even if the author does not evidently have Christ consciously in mind.

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.

Redemptive-Historical Method

OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROACH cont'd
by Tim Keller


Remembering the Two Authors
Rodney A. Whitney reiterates what we have just said about the two opposite errors in exegesis, but he bases each one in an incomplete doctrine of the Scripture. He writes that there have always been two basic emphases or approaches to Biblical interpretation. The first he calls this the 'Historic Approach" to Bible interpretation. This stresses the fact that each text has a very human author. This approach asks 'What did the human Biblical author intend to say? What did it mean to the original author and audience?" To discover this, the interpreter looks at the linguistic, literary. and historical evidence. But Whitacre also speaks of the 'Organic Approach" to Bible interpretation. This stresses the fact that all of Scripture has a divine author. This approach asks: 'What does the divine Biblical author intend for us to hear? Why did he put this in the Bible for us?" To discover this, the interpreter looks at all the Bible (especially texts that are most like and most unlike it) and at Jesus Christ, who (as we have seen) the overall message of the Bible is about.

a. The Extreme Forms.
At the extreme end of an 'Organic-Only" approach, we have wildly Allegorical Interpretation. Whitacre gives an example of this in a famous interpretation of Ps. 137:-9 by the medieval church. “0 daughter of Babylon..happy is he.. who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." The allegorical interpretation goes like this. Jesus is the Rock. Babylon represents evil and sin. So we are being told to take even our littlest sins and most embryonic sinful thoughts and dash them on Christ. This interpretation connects to other parts of the Bible (Christ as the Rock, the need for purity and holiness) but it makes no attempt to connect to the original historical meaning of the text.
(2) At the other extreme of a 'Historic-Only" approach. We have most scholarship in the world today--the Historical-Critical Interpretation. It makes no attempt to align or integrate what Paul says with what Isaiah says. There is no concept of any divine authorship or divine unity. Any attempt at harmonization is scorned and disdained. The meaning of the ancient texts is locked away, therefore, in a very ancient time and has nothing to do with us directly. Any normative or systematic theology is impossible.

b. Moderate Forms. Within the mainstream of the evangelical world these two extremes are rightly discarded. But two more moderate forms of the two poles creates real confusion among orthodox students of the Bible today.
(1) First, there is a moderate Historical-Critical approach which does allow for 'harmonization' with other texts for the purpose of Systematics, but is not comfortable with reading any meanings out of a text that the human author did not know of. Because this view believes in the divine authorship of the entire Bible it will accept that an OT author was talking unwittingly about Jesus, but onlv when a NT author tells us that he was.
(2) On the other hand, the Redemptive-Historical approach, which stresses more the organic unity of divine authorship, believes that many texts mean more than the human author intended. By the Holy Spirit's inspiration, an OT text may tell us about Jesus Christ and we may discover this, even if no NT author tells us so.

c. Criticisms. Of the 'Redemptive-Historical' approach:
First, there is a real danger of allegorizing. If you are not 'controlled' in your interpretation by first establishing the human author's intention, then your imagination can just run wild and you can get anything out of it.
Second, since you are always looking to 'find Christ' in the text, you may miss the very real practical applications and moral exhortations that are there. The people will get an inspiring picture of Jesus, but not get any real practical direction in how to live their lives.
Third, it could be hard for your lay people to learn how to interpret the Bible with this method. When you are done they’ll say: 'My! I could never get all that out of a text." And they'll be right.

(2) But the criticisms of the ‘Historical-Intent Only’ approach are, I believe, more trenchant.

First, as we mentioned above the New Testament writers continually interpret the Old Testament using the 'Organic' or "Redemptive-Historical" approach. They are constantly reading Psalms and other parts of the Bible as being about Christ, even when those texts have no clear 'Messianic Prophecy" in them. This was clearly a 'model' with which the NT writers were interpreting the OT. Why not use the model? The objection that 'they were inspired, we
are not' assumes that no one else in the early church was reading the Old Testament in a thoroughly Christological way. But all indications are that they were.

Second, the historical approach often speaks of the Christo-centric approach being 'arbitrary', but it's own method is much more speculative than it seems to realize. Of course it is somewhat speculative to answer the question "what does this text tell us about Jesus?" when we know that the author didn't intend to tell us overtly about Jesus. But on the other hand, it is somewhat speculative to try to reconstruct the original condition and historical setting as well. We are never sure we are right about the original audience. It takes a great deal of imagination and guess work to posit authorial intent. So the grammatico-historical exegesis is not as scientific and objective as it might first appear.

Third, we must be able to preach Christ from a text or we have the problem of 'synagogue' sermons. We are preaching the same sermon that could be preached in a synagogue-"Here is the righteous law. Do it and you will live." For example, how should we preach Jacob wrestling with the angel? There is no place where a New Testament writer sees this as a type of Christ. In the stricter view, then. We cannot preach this text as being about Christ at all. We must say that we learn here things like: a) life is filled with difficulty but we should persevere, or b) we need to wrestle with God in prayer. But that is what could have been preached centuries before Christ came. It is a sermon that would fit as well in a synagogue.

Fourth, the 'Historical-Intent Only' approach implies that the Church was not able to interpret the Bible properly until very recently we had the historical tools to discern original settings.

The Difference between an "Allegory" and a "Type"
If then we see that a Christological reading of the Bible is a wise and right way to go—the biggest practical issue that comes us in this discussion is-how can you tell the difference between a "type" and an "allegory"? The Redemptive-Historical approach finds types of Christ in OT texts even where a NT writer does not indicate that there is one. How can you be sure you are not allegorizing? Based on the writings of Clowney and Rod Whitacre's paper, here is a summary of the difference.

a. Typology: (1) Clowney - type is based on something in the text of symbolic significance and to the human author and in the Scriptures in general. There must be evidence that the author saw a feature or figure as having some significance of syrnbolism. For example, is the fact that the chord Rahab uses to mark and protect her home (Joshua 2) is scarlet significant to the author? Or does the color red symbolize blood or sacrifice in general in the Bible. If not (and I don't think we can demonstrate that it does), then we cannot preach that the chord- represents the blood of Christ protecting us from justice and wrath--as some people have done.' However, we can preach the blood on the doorposts of the Israelites that way (Exodus 12). Can ' we preach that God's choice of Leah as the mother of the Messianic seed is a type of God's salvation through weakness and rejection (Matt. 1 : 1 - 17; 1 Cor. 1 :26ff.)? We would have to demonstrate that the author of Genesis knew that Judah was the bearer of the Messianic strain and that therefore it's corning to Leah rather than Rachel was an act of grace. I believe we can (Gen.49: 10). Can we preach that Isaac represents Christ? Yes, because in the Old Testament the first-born had redemptive significance; Every first born belonged to God, etc. (Whitacre) A type is also based on connections between macro features and figures. It sees similarities between persons (prophets, priests, kings), events (Passover, exodus), and patterns of practice (saving through rejection, weakness). For example, in 2 Kings 5, we see a type of Christ’s revelation in the exclusivity of the prophet Elisha. Naaman must go to Israel, and he must wash in the Jordan. Because the Lord's salvation is a revealed salvation, we must submit to that revelation. On the other hand, we see a type of Christ's salvation in the prominence of the servants. Naarnan keeps going to kings, but God sends his salvation through the weak and marginal. He must go to a weaker country than Syria. He learns of his salvation through a servant girl who was victimized by his military, he only avoids disaster when his own servants reason with him to listen to Elisha. Because salvation comes through weakness and the powerless, we receive it by repentance/ faith alone and so refuse to worship worldly power and wealth. So types focus on 'macro-patterns' of revelation rather than descending to details.

b. Allegory: (1) Allegory, by contrast, seeks no basis in the author's original intent. Of course, it reads everything as symbolic, but it makes no attempt to show through linguistic or literary analysis that the feature it fixes on was of some symbolic significance to the human author. In other words, it ignores the human nature of the Bible and treats it as if it were simply a supernatural text. (2) Secondly, allegory focuses on microfeatures such as words or even numbers. It may take the two coins that the Good Samaritan left with the innkeeper
as the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper left by Jesus to sustain and heal us. It may take the 'little ones' of Ps.137:8-9 as our sinful thoughts or our 'little' white lies. Instead of seeking to identify broad patterns of salvation with Jesus' pattern, it fixes on details.

Redemptive-Historical Method

By Tim Keller
OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROACH
In light of the RHM approach, there are two opposite exegetical errors to avoid. Let's recall the words of Sidney Greidanus: "We can define 'preaching Christ' as preaching sermons which authentically integrate the message of the text with the climax of God's revelation in the person, work, and teaching of Jesus Christ .. '

Moralizing. If on the one hand, we fail to relate the text to the saving work of Christ we fail both hermeneutically and pastorally.
1) Hermeneutically. We fail to truly reveal the meaning of the text. If every part of the Bible testifies to Christ, then until we discern how a text tells us about him we do not know what it really means.
2) Pastorally, we fail to truly guide the listeners into any real holiness. If they hear us, in isolation, simply telling them how to raise their children, face trials, pray fervently, or create a healthy church--we give them the (totally false) impression that they can be right with God and others through their own efforts.

Allegorizing. If, on the other hand we fail to "authentically integrate" the message of the text with the saving work of Christ, but rather only point out superficial likenesses between the text and Jesus ("As Rahab took shelter under the red cord, so we should take shelter under the blood of Christ")--we also fail hermeneutically and pastorally.
1) Hermeneutically, allegorizing is a 'quick fix' substituting for hard thinking about the meaning of the text. Allegorizing either can lead to doing too little work on the micro-context (you don't spend enough time penetrating to the author's original intent for his readers) or can lead to doing too little work on the macro-context (you will simply refer to superficial features rather than preaching the great 'longitudinal' Biblical-theological
themes like temple, covenant, kingdom, substitution).
2) Pastorally, allegorizing has the same weaknesses. Too little emphasis on the micro-context leads to a lack of practical application. For example, if we jump to Christ' too soon we miss the exemplary value of the text. On the other hand, if we put too little emphasis on the macro-context and make the connection to Christ superficial, we end up with a moralistic sermon anyway. Allegorizing only arouses sentimental feelings. It does not confront self-righteous pride and self-righteous fear.

The concern about allegorizing.
While the proponents of RHM are very concerned about moralizing, it opponents think that the main danger (and main objection) to the RHM is the danger of allegorizing. An example that Sidney Greidanus uses is from Augustine.

'The door [in the side of the ark] surely represents the wound made when the side of the crucified was pierced with the spear ... This is the way of entrance for those who come to him.." Citv of God 13.21

"Allegorizing" has two very bad effects. 1) It makes for completely arbitrary interpretation. Instead of living under the authority of the Word, we can get nearly any message from a text we wish. 2) I t fails to honor the meaning and message of the human author whose conscious intent is the vehicle for God's revelation. Modem interpreters, both of an orthodox and liberal bent, eschew allegorizing by concentrating wholly on the original intent of the human author as the only sure and certain benchmark. But there are dangers on the other extreme as well.

Great Quote!

“Jesus’s teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day. However, in the main, our churches today do not have this effect. The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did.” - Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God

Redemptive-Historical Method - Locating/Reading the Text

THE REDEMPTIVE-HISTORICAL METHOD

From Tim Keller -

2. LOCATING/READING THE TEXT IN ITS TWO CONTEXTS
Sidney Greidanus writes. "We can define 'preaching Christ' as preaching sermons which authentically integrate the message of the text with the climax of God's revelation in the person, work and teaching of Jesus Christ..” This definition assumes that every text has a 'micro' and a 'macro' context.

To understand any particular text of the Bible, we must first put it into the 'micro' context—its historical and linguistic setting, in order to discern the immediate intent of the human author. This is what in the 20th century has come to be known as the 'grammatico-historical' method, and it is crucial. We must use every tool we have to discern what the original author meant to say to the original readers of the text. We study the use of language, we study the historical context. We put the text in the context of the whole book, and so on.

But every Biblical text also has a 'macro' context--its place in the entire Bible which has as its purpose, the revelation of Christ as the climax of all God's redeeming activity in history. We must not only ask: 'what did the human author intend to say to his historical audience?' but also 'why did God in 'scripturate' this as a way of pointing to the salvation of his Son?

So the Redemptive-historical method of interpretation insists that we put each text not only into the context of its original setting and author-intent but also into the context of it’s 'the big story of salvation' as traced above. The interpreter must 'locate' the text, recognizing what place it holds in the developing salvation-story line (i.e. what stage in redemption-history is occupies.) So what does that mean? I suggest the following two practical measures.

A. First. It means recognizing the text's 'limitations'. This may sound a bit shocking-- isn't all Scripture inspired? Of course, but revelation is progressive. If we fail to put a text in its redemptive-historical context, we will run into trouble. For example, if the purpose of the Elijah narratives (as one minister put it] "is to teach us how to walk close to the Lord and be courageous", then we have some problems with the prophet's behavior! Should we go out and kill false teachers as Elijah did with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18)? If we see the purpose of 1 Kings 18 to be mainly instruction on how to live--and if we preach it as such--we will either be simply confused and embarrassed by Elijah's conduct or we will mislead Christians into a holy war mentality (!) ignoring the different stage of redemptive history in which we are now (Matt 26:52). But if the focus of every Biblical text is not on us and our behavior but on God and his saving activity, then the purpose of Elijah's ministry is to point us to salvation in Christ. We can say about Elijah. "Jesus told us to put up our swords and the cross shows us that the kingdom of God moves forward now in sacrificial service. But we do learn here that all religions are not alike!” So we must be aware of the 'limitations' or incompleteness of every stage in redemptive history before Christ.

b. Second. It means teasing out all the text's clues to how salvation 'works'. The traditional 'exemplarist' approach to the Bible (not just the Old Testament. but the New Testament! See note 2 below) tends to look for traits of moral behavior in every text. It asks: 'What do I learn here about prayer? Obedience? How to deal with self-pity? How to raise my children? How to conduct myself sexually? How to handle discouragement?" But if the purpose of every text is to point to God's saving purposes--then we must approach every text asking: “What gospel-pieces are here? What does this text show us about how salvation works? What does it tell me of grace, faith, the nature of sin, the attributes of God as they bear on our relationship to him, the nature of conversion, the results or marks of conversion?" It is only if we do this first that we can then treat the
moral-example aspect of the text properly.

c. Third, it means showing how the salvation 'pieces' only 'come together' eventually in Christ. For example, we may point out that Elijah was of course very courageous on Mt. Camel--but he was only courageous because he knew about God's saving purposes. Unlike Baal and all the pagan gods. the true God did not need worshippers to cut themselves and compel his attention and answers to prayer through their efforts. He knew that with only a word of prayer. God would hear and answer. But this incident participates in the Big Plot-Line of salvation's story. It raises the question: "why would the true God be so utterly different than the gods of the world's religions? why would he listen to his prophet without him cutting himself or dancing furiously or providing a perfect moral performance? Why" The only way the interpreter can answer this is to point ahead in the Scripture to how the plot-line resolves itself. It is because of Jesus who was cut literally to pieces for us and who made a perfect sacrifice for sins so that God can come to us and work with us despite our imperfections.

Note 1. Here then we get to the essence of the issue of 'moralism' and application. On the one hand you could so fear 'moralism' and put so much emphasis on the 'limitation' and partial nature of former ages of revelation that you read the text as nothing more than a 'type' of Christ. You may not allow any 'exemplary' force at all to the text to impinge on the listener. This is, however, to forget that every stage in revelation is a stage in redemption-history, very part of the Bible tells us something about how God's salvation 'works'. We learn things about grace, repentance, faith. obedience in every era. On the other hand, 1) just as it is clear in the gospels that the that we are not simply supposed to imitate Christ's example but believe and rest in his work for us (which is the only way we ever will follow his example), and 2) just as it is clear in the epistles that our imperatives ('do this') are based on indicatives ('because you are this'), then 3) whenever we preach on any other character in the Bible we must only exhort people to 'be like' him/her on the basis of faith in the one to whom he/she points.

Note 2: We must not think that 'putting the text into the One Story Line' is something you only have to work on with Old Testament texts. It is just as possible to preach New Testament texts--even Gospel accounts about Jesus--without reference to the overall story line of salvation. It is extremely possible to simply show how much Jesus loves and forgives or how great he is. appealing directly to sentiment, without showing how the particular text points to the longitudinal themes of sin. justice, redemption, and his saving work. It is possible to lift up Jesus simply as an example to emulate. Another example: it is well known that often Paul lays out the 'doctrine' in the early part of his letters and 'practical application' in the latter part. (This is an oversimplification. but a relatively helpful one.) It is extremely easy to preach a sermon on Ephesians 4 about the 'Marks of a Healthy Church' without grounding it in the Christology of Eph I. The same could be said for preaching on 'Love' in 1 Cor 13 without grounding it in the dissension of the Corinthians and its doctrinal solution--the cross (1 Cor 1). In all such cases the preacher is giving listener the strong impression that what it will take to have a healthy church (or a loving life) is simple moral effort.

Note 3: We must not think that 'putting the text into the One Story Line' means that we have to identify one 'longitudinal theme' as the central, controlling theme of the Bible. Many people have tried to demonstrate this. The best candidate is probably the theme of the 'kingdom' and a close second is 'covenant'. No t only do most Biblical theologians disagree with this on hermeneutical grounds. I think it is pragmatically unwise. Every theme has its own nuances and if we choose one theme as the theme we tend to become unbalanced in our understanding of the gospel. We may over-stress the mystical or the legal or the individual or the corporate.

'Redemptive-Historical' Method - Description

From Tim Keller

A BASIC DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH

"1. DISCERNING THE 'SALVATION STORY-LINE'

'Biblical theology' or the RHM posits that "it is the nature of biblical revelation that it tells a story rather than sets out tuneless principles in the abstract. If we allow the Bible to tell its own story, we find a coherent and meaningful whole”. The central story of the Bible is the story of redemption of salvation (thus the term 'redemptive-historical' method). The story is how 1) God initiates a saving work that we cannot do for ourselves 2) in order to a) create a new people for himself out of lost humanity and b) a new creation out of a marred and broken world. To do this takes justice and power on God's part, but also love and mercy. Only in Jesus Christ is it ultimately revealed how God's holiness and love can work together for saving purposes. Then, In him, all the themes--God's initiating grace, his redeeming provision, his presence with his covenant people. His renewing kingdom, and all others--come to a climax and fulfillment in the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no part of the Bible nor text of the Bible that does not participate in these longitudinal 'salvation' themes.

The pre-fall and fall accounts (Genesis 1-3) show us the world as God designed it to be and the reasons it has fallen from its original design. Thus this part of the Bible shows us why salvation in Christ is needed, and what that future restoration will look like.

The post-fall narratives (Genesis 4- 1) show the inadequacy of human effort or God's judgment alone to bring about renewal of the world. God's design for creation seems thwarted by human sin. The story-line and plot of the Bible goes dark very quickly. There is little hope.

The patriarchal narratives, however, show us hope. We see God beginning to intervene in the world's life. Some protagonists (besides God) appear--Abraham, Joseph, etc. We see the embryonic shape of his saving purposes: his sovereign, free grace, his intention to create a new humanity--a new people for himself, the necessity and nature of faith, the promise of a land, of blessing, of God's presence, of mission, and of a future Messiah. It is obvious that the protagonists relate to God through faith and grace, not works--but much the redeeming provision is cryptic and unclear. Why can God continually forgive and work with and be present with people that he should destroy? Why doesn't he destroy them as he did in the accounts of the Flood and of Babel? The Biblical story plot 'thickens'.

The exodus and the giving of the law clarify both how radically gracious God is (since the deliverance from Egypt happens before the giving of the law) and yet how inexorable the law and justice and righteousness of God are. God gives both the law and the sacrificial system as a pointer to the substitutionary atonement which will be his redemptive provision. The tabernacle now makes God's presence among his people a permanent thing. The law (as well as the wisdom literature) reveals God's interest in justice in the world and his desire for a people who are distinct in every respect--a truly 'new humanity1--who will be a light attracting the nations. The nature of the coming kingdom is clarified and focused also in the history of the leaders of Israel. Despite times of decline (the judges) there are times of rising hope that the saving purposes of God will be fulfilled and the world will turn back to God. These hopes climax in the career of David.

But the post-David prophetic period makes clear that God's grace, redemption. covenant, the promise of a land and a kingdom will not be fulfilled by physical Israel or its human prophets, priests. heroes and kings. The decline of Israel brings us the prophets who 'move the story line' along in two ways. Negatively, they expound and develop the great longitudinal saving themes by way of critique of Israel. As they castigate and condemn the rebellious nation in ‘covenant lawsuit’ they provide greater insight into the mission of the people of God in the world, the social and personal righteousness God is ‘after’ in His people, and also the twin mistakes of licentiousness and self-righteousness /legalism. Positively, the prophets begin to (more clearly than ever) point ahead to how God will fulfill all his promises in eschatological fullness in the future. The first major prophets Elijah and Elisha have a remarkable ministry of unprecedented 'signs and wonders'. Under their hands, 'the blind see. the lame walk. The dead raised, and good news is preached to the poor.' These are signs of the powerful restoration the kingdom will bring. A final rebuilt temple, an ultimate return from exile, a consummate and perfect kingdom--are all now in view.

The ministry of Jesus in the gospels shows us how Jesus is the fulfillment and climax of all the longitudinal themes of God's salvation. In him all the 'plot tensions' are resolved. (How can God's promises be conditional--upon our obedience. yet unconditional--upon his grace?) In him all the protagonists of history are re-capitulated and succeed where they previously failed. In his life-story we have the world-salvation story re-told. We have darkness, a light and promise. A rising hope which is dashed on Good Friday, and then an unlooked for victory out of defeat.) Finally, the primacy of grace always present in the former ages, is now crystal clear in the ministry of Christ. His ethical example to us is secondary and based on his saving work for us. We are not saved through our imitation of him. But (ironically) in his substitutionary 'imitation' and representation of US.

The church now lives in the "overlap" of the ages between the first and second comings of Christ. So the 'story of salvation' is not over, despite its climax in Christ. There is an intensification and progression of all the longitudinal themes now and yet an incompleteness for the kingdom of God is 'already' but 'not yet'. So on the one hand, the Christian community itself is now God's temple--we have the Holy Spirit and presence of God. The mission of the people of God as a light to all the nations is now overt rather than implicit. The people of God are now multi-national, multi-ethnic. Much of the wisdom (from the wisdom literature) and the righteousness (from the law) can now characterize us as individuals and a community through the power of the Spirit. But, on the other hand our ethical and life-paradigm now is the cross. In the church age the kingdom moves ahead through loss and poverty and rejection and service and weakness.

The new heavens and new earth are the ultimate end of God's redemptive work in Christ. The RHM helps us see that the goal of God's work in Christ is not escape from the world but the renewal of the whole world. Heaven will re-unite with the earth and the whole world will become a giant holy-of-ho1ies.

Summary: It is Jesus that makes all these stories one story. Only when we understand all the previous stories and pointers (types) do we realize the richness and fullness of who Christ is. But on the other hand, only when we understand him (anti-type) do we understand what the pointers and all the other stories were about. We cannot fully understand one without the other. So for example, when in John 3 Jesus says he is like the serpent lifted up in the wilderness he puts the Serpent-in-the-wilderness into the Big Story. Yes. the purpose of the comparison is that the serpent incident sheds light on how Jesus saves us (e.g. it only takes a look, he is made like and treated like the sin that is killing us. etc.)--but on the other hand it means that we can't understand the incident of the serpent without realizing that it points us to Christ. Jesus shows us that the Bible is not an interesting set of isolated stories, each story telling us something different about how to live. Rather, Jesus unifies all the chapters into one story."

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."

Real Preaching

From Tim Keller:

Dr. D.M.Lloyd-Jones, hardly a trendy type in article on how Edwards effected him, makes a major critique of evangelical-expository preaching as currently taught many places. "The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently. In this respect Edwards is in a sense. critical of what was a prominent Puritan custom and practice. The Puritan father would catechize and question the children as to what the preacher had said. Edwards, in my opinion, has the true notion of preaching. It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit (He mentions how discouraged people taking notes preaching--'this is not a lecture' Welsh growl.) As preachers we must not forget this. We should tell our people to read certain books themselves and get the information there. The business of preaching is to make such knowledge live."

Edwards Thoughts on Revival fits in: 'The frequent preaching that has lately obtained has in a particular manner been objected against..It is objected that..so many sermons in a week is too much to remember and digest Such objections against frequent preaching. if they be not from an enrmty against--re1igion are for want of duly considering the way that sermons usually profit an auditory. The main benefit obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind at the time, and not by an effect that arises afterwords by a remembrance of what was delivered. And though an after-remembrance of what was heard in a sermon is oftentimes very profitable; yet
for the most part. that remembrance is from an impression the words made on the heart at the time: and the memo y profits. as it renews and increases that impression' (Thoughts on revival).

Sum: If it is true that auditors are now less rational and more interested in 'encounter' and 'experience', and so on--Edwards and Lloyd Jones' advice is even more on target than ever before. Not iust to make the truth clear, but to make the truth real