# Redemptive Historical/Biblical Theology?



## thistle93 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hi! Is Redemptive Historical hermeneutics synonyms with Biblical Theology or is Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics the way ones is to end up do Biblical Theology? 

What is greatest difference between Redemptive Historical & Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics? Seems Redemptive is usually Covenant and Grammatical is Dispensational. Anything else?

Best books from a Redemptive Historical/Biblical Theology perspective? 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 16, 2012)

"The History of Redemption" was the way that Geerhardus Vos (Princeton Seminary) about a century ago cast the study of Biblical Theology from a Reformed perspective. He understood the labor as investigating the organic unfolding of divine special-revelation. And yes, he saw Covenant Theology as something akin to the same effort, just not as sweeping in the vision of its purpose. CT is more of a step-by-step movement through the Scriptures, looking at God's interaction with his believers while his gracious saving purposes unfold in stages of history.

Biblical Theology is a term that has wide and narrow use, as well as competing definitions. For example, certain impulses in of Brevard Childs' work have been viewed as BT. He is well known for advocating (among liberals) the simple use of the final "canonical form" of the text, leaving questions of critical background aside. Hence, it may be possible to discover a "center" to "Moses'" theology, and other writers, as well as a kind of thematic unity to the OT. But to these investigators, there's always the fear that they are imposing something on the text, rather than finding something in the text, because their understanding of *inspiration* is minimal (if they admit it at all). On the other hand, those liberals who are thoroughly post-modern see BT as perfect for their inquiries, because they say at the outset that as readers/interpreters they are sovereigns over the text once it comes into their hands. So if they locate a "center" or a thematic-unity to the OT or the whole Bible, it really doesn't matter if it has an "objective existence," because they deny such a thing exists anyway.

As believers, and admitters of HS inspiration, we (in a sense) can have it all: we can have various "centers" to the theology of various writers of the parts of the Bible; we can also have one central idea, which is superintended by the one mind of God, and is actually present in the many-texts/one-book because we believe in one Author ultimately; and as Reformed interpreters, we can follow that organic thread of unfolding revelation along its self-disclosing line, much like a novel introduces and unfolds its themes, plots, and supporting aspects, all in service of the telos.

As I understand RH interpretation and preaching, it is an "applied" BT that has no problem "going the opposite direction" in terms of understanding the mind of God in the text. The latter portions of our Bible inform the reader as to the proper meaning of earlier portions, every bit as much as earlier portions inform the reader as to the meaning of latter portions. There is nuance, of course. The acorn=the oak tree _in some sense,_ but not in every possible sense. We don't suppose that Moses (or Abraham, Noah, Enoch, etc.) knew everything about the Christ to come. But RH would say that they did not think _erroneously_ about the Christ, or that their prophecies were aimed at one thing, while ultimately the HS had a different aim in mind for those same ideas.

For example, RH takes the language of Heb.11:24-26 with face-value seriousness:By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. *He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward*.​That is to say, Moses was a "proto-Christian," and he did what he did in days of old having in his mind attitudes and impulses charged by a faith that resembles a NT believer's in every essential respect--even to the point of a heavenly, consummated hope as his reward. That, as opposed to thinking that the land of Canaan was the reward of his hope.

RH says that the NT tells us to interpret Moses in this manner. The NT invites us to assume a robust, though not detailed, understanding of the one-true-faith in the hearts of OT saints. The sapling doesn't prefigure the tree in every respect, but the elements are there. And so we read an OT passage looking for the indications great and small that will become the fulfillment in Christ (who IS the center of the whole Bible). We don't assume, for instance, that those who are "living the events" of the sacred history are aware of the parts they are fulfilling in the grand sweep of the story (although perhaps the inspired historian or prophet is starting to appreciate some of the big-picture, even as he adds pages to the story). Jacob probably didn't see himself as God's Elect taking a journey away from the Land of Blessedness, to visit His People, empowered by the Spirit, and seeking a Bride to Come Away with him. But frankly, that's the underlying message that speaks to me out of the early verses of Gen.29. And perhaps even Moses also caught more than a whiff of those elements as he wrote and organized the inspired materials in five books for God's people, the beginnings of what should eventually be the whole Bible.


You might like this book, by a Southern Baptist sem. prof., Amazon.com: God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (9781581349764): James M. Hamilton Jr.: Books . He might not be as RH as someone from WTS, like GK Beale, but there's more than a little affinity between them, and Hamilton has openly expressed his general appreciation for Beale's work.


----------



## eqdj (Jul 19, 2012)

thistle93 said:


> Best books from a Redemptive Historical/Biblical Theology perspective?



From the questions you've asked I would specifically recommend Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles by Graeme Goldsworthy. In every book he writes he starts out with Christ/Gospel as the key to interpreting scripture, so I would recommend anything he's written.


----------

