What are the Foundations for Redemptive-Historical Interpretation?

By luke g. on Dec 17, 2009 in Hermeneutics

“In many ways, redemptive-historical interpretation resembles a close reading of ancient and authoritative texts, such as constitutional documents or even dense poetry. Yet there are differences. The redemptive-historical theologian (RHT) is, for this essay, an evangelical who affirms the verbal or plenary inspiration of Scripture. We assert the inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency, progressive development, and christocentricity of the Bible. Because we believe Scripture has a divine Author who inspires the human author, the discovery of the first Author’s message obligates the ideal reader to believe and do certain things as a result, even if that should prove difficult.” – Daniel M. Doriani, Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology, 76

As some of you know, or can recognize, I’d consider myself an advocate of Redemptive-Historical Interpretation (RHI) when we’re talking about the application of Scripture to the lives of Christians living today. The method just makes so much sense to me. The reason I find this quote so helpful is because Doriani clearly explains the foundations for RHI in this book, which is excellent. The other authors who contribute their methods are equally good (though some better than others), but I love RHI.

But beyond advocating RHI, I really like how Doriani underlies essential points to any Evangelical method: (1) assumed inspiration, (2) inerrancy & infallibility, (3) sufficiency, (4) progressive development, and (5) christocentricity. Each of these should underlie an Evangelical’s approach to the text. In fact, while we Evangelicals do a great job of promoting #’s 1, 2, 3 and often 5, at times we ignore #4, which is essential to hermeneutics! God has chosen to progressively reveal both Himself and His plan of redemption throughout History. We find evidence of this especially in the New Testament, where the promises of the Old Testament find fulfillment. And what’s more is that these promises, which progressively develop through redemptive history, find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, which underlies why we are christocentric!

Recognizing these essential suppositions is what Doriani states should encourage our obligation to dig into the text and determine what God’s message was through the human authors by determining what the human authors’ message was! From there, though it may be “difficult,” our lives are to be changed – both what we believe and how we act. Amen,

  • Share/Bookmark

3 Comment(s)

  1. Luke, how is Vanhoozer’s chapter and responses? I loved his book, Is there Meaning in This Text?.

    Do you think the redemptive historical method is the only method that should be used, or are the other methods superior? I understand that Kaiser has advocated the principlized method in most of his works as the most beneficial and simple. Would you agree?

    I’m ordering this book now…

    Jholmes | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

  2. Vanhoozer is awesome, as you’re probably aware.

    I do not think the redemptive historical model is the only model. I just lean that way because it’s how I was more or less trained and what I have seen to be most effective, but not always!

    I’m not a huge fan of subscribing to one method at all times. That goes for apologetics (classical, evidential, presuppositional, cumulative, etc.), preaching (expository, textual, topical), etc. I obviously use one method more than others and I think there are stronger methods than others, but not always and in every case. It’s the same with theology (biblical, systematic, historical, etc.). They all seem to have their strengths.

    Also, Michael Patton wrote about this book and while he did not endorse the title of the book, he said everyone should get it, so I’m glad you are getting it :)

    John Frame has an excellent article that acknowledges the strengths of redemptive-historical preaching and other methods called, “Ethics, Preaching, and Biblical Theology.” After Frame states appreciation for redemptive historical method, he states,

    “Should every sermon have redemptive history as its principal subject? I would say no. There is nothing in the Bible itself that requires us to restrict preaching in this way. And there are many ethical passages in Scripture which do not explicitly focus on the eschatological ethical tension — such as Proverbs and some of the ethical passages of the New Testament. We should not demand that a preacher emphasize something that is not emphasized in his text. If one argues that these texts must be seen in the light of the broader biblical principles of redemptive history, again I would reply that the reverse is also true.”

    I assume Frame’s point is that we need to avoid going beyond what is required in the text and forcing it upon preachers. He goes on to suggest how a preacher can avoid being pigeon-holed by the overall character of his ministry.

    “Surely we cannot maintain that every relevant theological context be brought into the exposition of every text. I believe that if a preacher emphasizes grace in his overall ministry, including the proper relationship between grace and works, it is not wrong for him occasionally to preach on a Proverb, a law, or a norm, without devoting his central attention to the eschatological ethical tension.”

    The two most insightful statements that Frame makes are regarding the need for redemptive historical perspective within the framework of preachers:

    “There are some passages that are very confusing to modern congregations unless we say something about their redemptive-historical setting. God told Israel
    under Joshua to kill the Canaanites. Does he tell us to do the same? Certainly not, because the command presupposes a redemptive-historical setting very different from ours. The iniquity of the Canaanite is full; it is time for God’s judgment against those nations and the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. Those conditions don’t exist in our relationships with non-Christian neighbors.”

    and

    “So every preacher must be aware of the redemptive-historical setting of his text. But that doesn’t imply that the sermon must always be about that setting.
    There is no biblical rule that such settings are the only proper subject-matter of sermons.”

    luke g. | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

  3. Thanks. I would agree.

    Jholmes | Dec 22, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.