# Redemptive Historical and Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics



## Barnpreacher

I was listening to a past episode of the WHI today, and they presented the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic over and against the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic.

Does it have to be the one or the other? Does a preacher that follows the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic really believe those that follow the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic twist the Scriptures by preaching Christ when they think the historical context doesn't allow for it? Are they twisting the Scriptures by doing this?


----------



## Montolio

I think Waltke does a good job in his OT Theology of incorporating both grids.


----------



## MW

I learned hermeneutics in the old school using Berkhof. His work is excellent for showing that grammatico-historical exegesis also requires the theological element. The redemptive-historical approach is really a specific kind of theological element, and one which, when exclusively pursued, tends to undermine the redemptive-moral message of the Bible. RH exegesis has often struggled with those parts of the Bible which have no historical flow, especially the five poetic books; and one often sees a certain inventive faculty which creates historical reference-points so as to be able to apply such passages specifically to a redemptive period and eventually find their fulfilment in the finished work of Christ. This effectively drains such passages of the moral and devotional teaching which they intended to teach. It is at this point that the weakness of the RH approach as an exclusive hermeneutic becomes evident.


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> I learned hermeneutics in the old school using Berkhof. His work is excellent for showing that grammatico-historical exegesis also requires the theological element.



Berkhof is also who I studied to understand hermeneutics. That is why I was a little surprised that the WHI panel would be so at odds with the grammatico-historical approach.



armourbearer said:


> The redemptive-historical approach is really a specific kind of theological element, and one which, when exclusively pursued, tends to undermine the redemptive-moral message of the Bible. RH exegesis has often struggled with those parts of the Bible which have no historical flow, especially the five poetic books; and one often sees a certain inventive faculty which creates historical reference-points so as to be able to apply such passages specifically to a redemptive period and eventually find their fulfilment in the finished work of Christ. This effectively drains such passages of the moral and devotional teaching which they intended to teach. It is at this point that the weakness of the RH approach as an exclusive hermeneutic becomes evident.



But how can moral passages be applied without the understanding of the work of Christ on our behalf? For example, when Solomon was writing instructions to his son, was he doing so without an understanding of the active obedience of the coming Messiah?


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> But how can moral passages be applied without the understanding of the work of Christ on our behalf? For example, when Solomon was writing instructions to his son, was he doing so without an understanding of the active obedience of the coming Messiah?



I wouldn't call them "moral" passages, as if they are somehow distinct. But just as there is an historical dimension to the Scripture, so also is there a moral one, which might be called redemptive-moral. One of the purposes of Scripture is "instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect," 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; see also Heb. 5:14. This is not separated from the redemptive message of Scripture, but is itself part of the redemption which Christ accomplished. It is this aspect which is lost in an exclusive redemptive "historical" approach.

A key passage for understanding the redemptive-moral teaching of Scripture is Heb. 12:5-13, which takes up one of the Proverbs and applies it to New Testament believers. The applicability of the passage to Christian life is made immediately apparent by the father-son relationship inherent in the original instruction; but the instruction is filled out so as to apply to the full privilege of adoption which is now characteristic of the NT situation. There is a similar "filling-out" of Ps. 34:12-16 in 1 Pet. 3:10-12. In both passages the moral obligation is not negated by the redemptive work of Christ, but rather heightened as a result of the higher privilege conferred by Christ.


----------



## SolaGratia

Barnpreacher said:


> I was listening to a past episode of the WHI today, and they presented the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic over and against the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic.
> 
> Does it have to be the one or the other? Does a preacher that follows the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic really believe those that follow the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic twist the Scriptures by preaching Christ when they think the historical context doesn't allow for it? Are they twisting the Scriptures by doing this?



I was told this is also why GPTS and WSC have different approaches to preaching, better yet, how they teach their students to preached.


----------



## DMcFadden

SolaGratia said:


> I was told this is also why GPTS and WSC have different approaches to preaching, better yet, how they teach their students to preached.



This is interesting. Please explain.


----------



## danmpem

Barnpreacher said:


> I was listening to a past episode of the WHI today, and they presented the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic over and against the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic.
> 
> Does it have to be the one or the other? Does a preacher that follows the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic really believe those that follow the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic twist the Scriptures by preaching Christ when they think the historical context doesn't allow for it? Are they twisting the Scriptures by doing this?



Wait, what's the difference again?


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

I listen to the WH1 each week and don't recall them setting up one against the other. I have no idea why that would even be since one of their own - Dennis Johnson - in Him We Proclaim indicates that RH builds on the foundation of GH.



Barnpreacher said:


> I was listening to a past episode of the WHI today, and they presented the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic over and against the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic.
> 
> Does it have to be the one or the other? Does a preacher that follows the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic really believe those that follow the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic twist the Scriptures by preaching Christ when they think the historical context doesn't allow for it? Are they twisting the Scriptures by doing this?


----------



## SolaGratia

DMcFadden said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was told this is also why GPTS and WSC have different approaches to preaching, better yet, how they teach their students to preached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. Please explain.
Click to expand...


Below is Prof. John Carrick, of GPTS, with a critique of Redemptive-Historical Preaching.

GPTS - Resources: Prof. John Carrick Lecture

As I was told:

GPTS teached their students to preached according to the traditional reformed manner of preaching known as the Grammatical Historical Preaching or in a Grammatical Historical redemptive way of preaching from the bible. 

WSC teached according to G. Vos and Meredith Kline (and his students, M. Horton, Dennis Johnson, Edmond Clowney, etc. ) manner of looking at the Bible.


----------



## SolaGratia

Here are two books from each style and from their perspective seminaries and distinct professors:

The Presbyterian Bookshop : Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric

"Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative." J. Gresham Machen. In this necessary and vital book John Carrick has taken the task of first, defining the four categories in the theology of the rhetoric of preaching the indicative, exclamative, interrogative and the imperative. Secondly, he provides ample illustration of the four categories from Scripture. Thirdly, he illustrates and exemplifies each of these categories from the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Samuel Davies, Asahel Nettleton, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Finally, John Carrick considers the significance of the indicative-imperative structure of New Testament Christianity in relation to redemptive-historical preaching. This must be read. 


And.

The Bookstore at WSC: Him We Proclaim by Johnson, Dennis E.

Him We Proclaim advocates the Christ-centered, redemptive-historical, missiologically-communicated, grace-grounded method of Bible interpretation that the apostles learned from Jesus and practiced in their Gospel proclamation. Moving beyond theory, it shows how apostolic preaching opens up various biblical texts: history, law, wisdom, psalm, prophecy, parable, doctrine, exhortation, and apocalyptic vision.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Barnpreacher

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> I listen to the WH1 each week and don't recall them setting up one against the other. I have no idea why that would even be since one of their own - Dennis Johnson - in Him We Proclaim indicates that RH builds on the foundation of GH.
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was listening to a past episode of the WHI today, and they presented the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic over and against the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic.
> 
> Does it have to be the one or the other? Does a preacher that follows the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic really believe those that follow the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic twist the Scriptures by preaching Christ when they think the historical context doesn't allow for it? Are they twisting the Scriptures by doing this?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure it was the "What Would Moses Do" episode. They didn't spend the whole episode setting the two up against one another, but there was that specific point made within the show.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let me just say that, as a Greenville grad, I very much appreciate both Carrick and Johnson. I have both their books. Both of them can be read complimentary to the other.

Carrick is reacting against a particular strain of RH/BT hermeneutics, which exerts perhaps the greatest influence on a man's preaching. Carrick took a D.Min. _from_ WSC, out of which work was published his book already mentioned. It doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that his thesis was so far out of alignment with WSC's approach.

To carry the discussion even farther historically, WSC had a period of time when tensions were created over the appropriate emphasis on the RH/BT element. Eventually, a totally new seminary was started by professors with a particularly strong inclination toward exclusivity in RH/BT and a distinct reluctance to certain forms of application.

Now, where are we today? From where I stand, WSC comes at the issue of preaching from the RH/BT direction, giving place to the creed; they really desire to oppose "moralism" from the pulpit, more than anything. And GPTS comes at the issue of preaching from the creed, giving place to RH/BT; I think their main concern is avoiding/combating biblical and doctrinal ignorance. I think both sides have bona fide concerns. Both are aiming at Christ in their solutions, and find themselves together in a "box of hermeneutical maturity." Thankfully, not too big a box...

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## ChristianTrader

Contra_Mundum said:


> To carry the discussion even farther historically, WSC had a period of time when tensions were created over the appropriate emphasis on the RH/BT element. Eventually, a totally new seminary was started by professors with a particularly strong inclination toward exclusivity in RH/BT and a distinct reluctance to certain forms of application.



Which seminary is described here?

CT


----------



## Pilgrim

ChristianTrader said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To carry the discussion even farther historically, WSC had a period of time when tensions were created over the appropriate emphasis on the RH/BT element. Eventually, a totally new seminary was started by professors with a particularly strong inclination toward exclusivity in RH/BT and a distinct reluctance to certain forms of application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which seminary is described here?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I'm thinking it must be this one: Northwest Theological Seminary - Christocentric Confessional Reformed Biblical Theology From listening to one or two lectures by Dr. Carrick a while back, it seems that it is primarily this camp that he has in view with his critiques of RH preaching.


----------



## Archlute

Thanks for laying out some of the particulars of the issues involved, Bruce. It is true that Carrick's work was a polemic directed against a particular strain of RH/BT preaching that was developed by a former WSC instructor, and one which is not looked favorably upon by the current professors of homiletics. 

I personally enjoyed Carrick's work, as it pointed out the problem with a method of preaching that practically eliminates application in the sermon in favor of sheer typology. 

Johnson's book is a good representation of the emphases currently taught at WSC in interpretive method and preaching practice. What WSC seeks to do in training the Church's ministers is not to get rid of application at all, but to ground that application first in the centrality of Christ and his saving work, in order that imperatives should be preached as a response to grace (just as the Heidelberg Catechism is divided into the tripartite structure of guilt-grace-gratitude). Any commands or imperatives preached as pure law (i.e. "do this because it's right, and you should") is a form of moralism that misses the opportunity either to direct unbelievers to the finished work of Christ or to remind the Christian why he lives the Christian life in the first place.

If you want to hear a perfect example of the almost fully-Pelagian moralizing that WSC wants to avoid in her preachers, just listen to the recent episode of Adrian Rogers' "Love Worth Finding". In that sermon, faithfulness is presented as fully being our duty apart from any mention of the perfect faithfulness of Christ on our behalf, or really anything about Christ. The sermon ended in this manner: "If you are not faithful in your work, you are worthless to your boss. If you are not faithful in your studies, you are worthless to your teachers. And if you are not faithful in the work of the kingdom, you are worthless to God!" 

Rousing rhetoric by which to close a sermon? Sure. 

A good example of how ministers should represent the faithfulness and obedience of the Christian life as being foundationally grounded in the faithfulness and active obedience of Christ imputed unto us, assuring our salvation, and spurring us on to truly good works? Not at all.


----------



## DMcFadden

Adam,

Wow! What a great and helpful explanation. Thanks! Finally I know what the thread was getting at in terms of the background issues (and want to go out and buy Carrick).


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> I learned hermeneutics in the old school using Berkhof. His work is excellent for showing that grammatico-historical exegesis also requires the theological element. The redemptive-historical approach is really a specific kind of theological element, and one which, when exclusively pursued, tends to undermine the redemptive-moral message of the Bible. RH exegesis has often struggled with those parts of the Bible which have no historical flow, especially the five poetic books; and one often sees a certain inventive faculty which creates historical reference-points so as to be able to apply such passages specifically to a redemptive period and eventually find their fulfilment in the finished work of Christ. This effectively drains such passages of the moral and devotional teaching which they intended to teach. It is at this point that the weakness of the RH approach as an exclusive hermeneutic becomes evident.



Fantastic explanation...ever thought about elaborating on this point and writing it up for the Westminster Theological Journal or equivalent? Could be of great benefit to the literature on RH and, more importantly, to preaching.


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> Fantastic explanation...ever thought about elaborating on this point and writing it up for the Westminster Theological Journal or equivalent? Could be of great benefit to the literature on RH and, more importantly, to preaching.



I'm content to leave this kind of study to full-time academics, who have the time and opportunity for it.


----------

