“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,
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
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…
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,
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.
The two most insightful statements that Frame makes are regarding the need for redemptive historical perspective within the framework of preachers:
and
Thanks. I would agree.