Tag: Redemptive Historical

The Glorious God behind the Story of Esther

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

The only book of the Bible to not mention God at all is Esther. This feature has led to some canonical questions concerning the book. Yet, perhaps no book so clearly shows the hand of God in the background of the story.

Nathan Pitchford in a recent post on Esther, points out the many things God did to prevent the destruction of His people so that He might still bring the Messiah, Jesus Christ into the world. Nathan makes many helpful observations and even presents a picture of Christ as seen from the book. One important point he makes is this: since God is at work behind the scenes (and only “behind the scenes”)  in accomplishing His purposes in the story of Esther, we can draw encouragement and trust that God is at work behind the scenes in our own lives to bring to completion that great work He has begun in us.

Beyond an excellent example of a redemptive, historical, hermeneutical approach to the book of Esther, Nathan gives us a feast for our souls. He takes the many intricacies of the story of Esther and paints a glorious and stunning picture of our great sovereign God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

I encourage you all to read Nathan’s post, but I want to quote two paragraphs of it below, to whet your appetite.

We see the immutability of God’s purpose to accomplish the coming of Christ from the seed of the Jews in two circumstances: the first is how he sovereignly effects the minutest details of history to preserve the line from which he should come. Consider how many incidents he brings about for the preservation of the Messianic line: first, he causes King Ahasuerus, in whose pleasure resides the fate of the Jews (in an earthly sense), to become angry against his queen. Then he causes Esther, who is of Jewish seed (although unbeknownst to him) to find favor in his eyes. Then he provides for Esther the godly counsel she needs in the person of Mordecai, her cousin. Next, he reveals a plot against the king to this same Mordecai, and gives him the opportunity and desire to report the plot and deliver the king from the potential assassins. He causes Haman, the next in power to the king, to be angry with Mordecai, and with the Jews in general; he causes Haman, through the use of lots, to mark a certain day for the destruction of the Jews; he gives Esther the counsel and the courage to seek an audience with the king; he gives the king a favorable reception to this brazen request for an audience; he allows Esther such trepidation that she is unable to ask for her true request, and causes her instead to prepare a feast for Ahasuerus and Haman; he gives Haman the false sense of flattery, that he alone was invited to Queen Esther’s feast; and he does the same thing a second time, so that Haman is emboldened to construct a gallows for Mordecai; he causes the king, on the night before the second feast, to be smitten with insomnia, so that the chronicles of the kingdom should be read to him, so as to put him to sleep; he causes that very portion of the chronicles to be read which speak of Mordecai’s heroic saving of the king from the assassins; he leads the king to desire to honor him who saved his life; he causes him to seek counsel how to honor him from Haman; he stirs up Haman to think that the king wishes to honor himself; he instructs Haman of a method by which true honor might be shown to him who is worthy; he causes the king to command Haman himself to carry out this true honor for Mordecai, whom he hates; he gives Esther boldness, at the proper time, to declare to the king Haman’s wickedness; he causes Haman to fear, and to fall upon the bed of Esther in seeking her mercy; he causes the king to find him in this position; he stirs up anger in the king, at the false supposition that Haman is attempting to force Esther in the king’s own house; he gives Ahasuerus the heart to grant Esther’s request to overturn the intention of wicked Haman; he brings to the king’s attention the gallows of Haman, and gives him the desire to have Haman hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai; he gives the Jews a mighty victory out of what should have been their annihilation, from the counter decree of Ahasuerus. He brings to his people a feast of celebration out of the sorrow of defeat; and finally, he causes Haman’s own sons to be hanged upon the gallows of their father, while the Jews celebrate their victory. It is simply staggering to consider how many tiny details God worked together for the salvation of his people.

The second notable circumstance is how God accomplished this great orchestration, as it were, behind the scenes. In no place at all is the name of God mentioned in the book of Esther. And yet, even when he is not seen, God is sovereignly and mightily at work to effect his great plan. How comforting is this reality to all who are his! God truly does cause “all things to work together for good to them that love him” (Romans 8:28)! And more comforting yet is the reality that the purpose for which he is exercising this minute and staggering sovereignty is nothing other than to bring Christ into the world. Christ alone is the good that God has purposed to bring about for his children, through every circumstance. The effect of God’s great control over history is that “nothing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:39). Oh Christian, do you despair at the manifold trials which attend the insignificant details of your life? Rejoice, for God is at work, even when you cannot see him; and he is at work to bring to you Christ, your only hope of glory and eternal satisfaction! [Read the whole article here.]

Redemptive Historical Interpretation Compared to the Dispensational Hermeneutic

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

I came across an excellent article on Triablogue by Evan May entitled “The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic vs. The Foreign-Eschatological Hermeneutic” (HT: Doxoblogy). The article does a good job explaining redemptive historical hermeneutics to a dispensational commentor. I will quote a few points he makes here, and then refer you to read the article–it will help you understand reformed hermeneutics and will be well worth your time (it is not that long of a read, actually).

1. The Pendulum swings both ways. The Covenantal hermeneutic interprets the Old Testament in light of the New testament. The Dispensational hermeneutic interprets the New in light of the Old. Both camps must defend their hermeneutical methods. We don’t simply assume a Dispensational hermeneutic until we find something better….

3. Much of the Covenantal hermeneutic isn’t so much “the way NT authors used the OT,” but simply being fair to a text in its own context. Dispensationalists habitually rip OT prophecies from their redemptive-historical context and force them into a foreign eschatological context. It’s almost as if Dispensationalists believe that the prophets couldn’t find a topic to speak about: one moment they’re talking about restoration from the exile; the next moment they’re talking about folks disappearing out of their clothes on an airplane….

5. But, it must be noted that the Covenantal hermeneutic is not some knee-jerk, arbitrary dogma of “spiritualize any Old Testament prophecy whatsoever.” Rather, we deal with texts on their own merit. We want to be fair to what the text itself states, and we exegete them on a case-by-case basis (and for this reason, I am glad that Bobby posed a text rather than simply speaking generically)…. [Read the whole article.]

The Redemptive Historical Hermeneutical Approach to the Book of Proverbs

~ fundyreformed

I just finished reading another excellent post on redemptive historical hermeneutics by my friend Nathan Pitchford. He has written an excellent article dealing with the interpretation of the book of Proverbs for Reformation Theology Blog. In the post, he argues for the personified Wisdom being seen as redemptive Wisdom and pointing to Christ Himself, while the “strange woman” represents the world system opposing Christ later known as the whore and Babylon of Revelation besides merely the actual enticement of any prostitute or adulteress. He also argues against a moralistic view of the Proverbs, rather encoraging us to view all of the proverbs in the light of the gospel of Christ. Let me provide his first paragraph here, and then encourage you all to go read the article, here.

“The two outstanding characteristics of the Proverbs with which I associate my childhood, neither legitimate but both having a pervasive influence in my surrounding circles, are fragmentation and moralism. The former of which gave rise to the latter: as long as the individual proverbs were seen as disconnected and de-contextualized, that is, as long as they were seen as a series of random thoughts, it was easy to make such character qualities as honesty, industry, and diligence the foundation and fountainhead of the Christian life. When will God be pleased with me? When I am honest and industrious. How do I encounter God’s blessings? By being honest and industrious. And so the reasoning ran. The more foundational question, “How can I, a depraved sinner, hope to become honest and industrious?” , if acknowledged at all, was glibly passed off with an exhortation to try harder. I found all of this exceedingly confusing, as it appeared to contradict everything that was said when one was speaking of the gospel — but considering it a necessary and appropriate shift when dealing with a corpus of “practical” material, I managed by compartmentalizing my conception of Christianity to muddle along without serious reservations, albeit equally without any precision of thought concerning justification, sanctification, and the relationship between the two.”[Read the entire article!]

More on Redemptive Historical Interpretation of Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

Lately I have been thinking alot about hermeneutics. I have been contemplating the merits of the redemptive historical interpretation of Scripture. (Learn what that means here, in a previous post.) The article by my friend Nathan Pitchford, linked to in the post mentioned above, points out that the literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic of the Reformers is different that that of today. And the reason this is the case, is the growth of rationalism due to the pervasive influence of the Enlightenment. (Be sure to read that post, I have mentioned!)

Anyway, last week I heard a presentation by someone on hermeneutics which dealt specifically with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The speaker was teaching that we should not allegorize the parable at all, but that it only conveys a main basic point that Christ was attempting to draw from it. Yet in his presentation, (I suppose to show how this allegorizing kind of interpreting can get out of hand), he quoted many different leaders throughout church history, and only John Calvin did not give an allegorical view of this parable. The first person to push for the interpretation this guy was advancing was in the late 1800s and was a German intellectual. This presentation seemed to push me the other way, totally! It sure seemed to illustrate how rationalistic thinking has changed our hermeneutics. Now granted there have been some extreme examples of rampant allegorization, but by and large a Christ-centered hermeneutic has been employed throughout church history. I cannot bring myself to conclude that the “enlightened” modern (and post-modern) world has finally been able to recover sound hermeneutics, and that the Holy Spirit was somehow unable to bring Christ’s church to unity in a true and sound hermeneutic until He was helped by the Enlightenment.

In thinking through this issue, I came across a good (and brief) article which gives a “how to” plan for interpreting Scripture (specifically OT Scripture–which is where the differences of opinion are strongest, today). As you will see when you look at it, this article does not throw out many of the advances made in interpretation today, particularly greater understanding of the different genres and forms of literature the Bible contains, etc. These insights are very helpful for interpreting the text correctly. However, it stresses that we must compare the teaching of each OT passage with all of redemptive history, particularly the gospel of Christ. Only then can we learn all that God intends for us with this Scripture. The article is called, “How a Christian Can Read Any Old Testament Passage” and is by Robert A Lotzer. [He draws from Beale and Greidanus among others.]

Stay tuned, for more posts on this topic. I think it is as important as any topic I discuss here. May God bring us all to a better understanding of and a clearer apprehension of Christ through His Word.

Reformed Hermeneutics: Christ-centered not Naturalistic

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford was recently made a contributor to Monergism.Com‘s Reformation Theology Blog! In his first post, he dealt with an issue concerning which he has written a book (he is currently seeking to get it published). It is an issue which is very important to our understanding of Scripture–the topic of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether or not they can spell the word, or know what it means.

Evangelicalism today largely favors the use of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. This approach takes each word in its normal sense unless the context or grammar demands otherwise. It also takes into account the historical setting of the author, book, and audience, in making interpretative decisions.

Nathan argues that this was the approach of the Reformer’s, yet with one important extra feature. The Reformer’s interpretive approach focused on finding how every passage of Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. They viewed the Bible as a unified whole, presenting one story–God’s redemption of fallen man.

Nathan points out that the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been used due to the influence of the Enlightenment and subsequent liberal theology, to stress a naturalistic approach to the text. Nathan contrasts the two approaches to Scripture prominent today as follows:

“What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate ‘a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament’? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, ‘How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,’ in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.”

The approach Nathan advocates, is called a “redemptive historical approach” by Reformation Theology Blog, and others. Nathan gives six reasons why an approach which “does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.” They are:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible — that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms” .

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

Be sure to read his entire article!