This post is a review of “Redemptive-Historic View” by Bryan Chapell in Scott M. Gibson’s and Matthew D. Kim’s Homiletics and Hermeneutics: Four Views on Preaching Today.
I agree with Byran Chapell when he warns that the redemptive-historical view of forcing Christ into every text has “been abused, in ways that are now obvious to us, by ancient allegorism that sought to make Jesus ‘magically’ appear in every Bible passage through exegetical acrobatics that stretched logic, imagination, and credulity.”[1] This is a candid admission.
Warnings from Byran Chapell
Chapell issues another warning about some uses of the redemptive-historical view when he states that “When a preacher uses a geographical reference to a well in the Old Testament to introduce a discussion of Jesus’s conversation with the woman at the well, no real explanation of the original passage’s place and meaning in redemptive history has occurred. The preacher has only engaged in a bit of wordplay.[2]
Chapell notes that there are a variety of redemptive-historic views with which he does not totally agree. Such as the historical approach by Geerhardus Vos in Introduction to Biblical Theology. The doctrinal approach by D. A. Carson in The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story. There is also the literary approach of Edmund Clowney, in Preaching and Biblical Theology and Unfolding Mystery, and Timothy Keller in Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. Chapell not finding these approaches adequate has added his version of the redemptive-historical approach referred to as the relational interaction. This redemptive-historical approach is accomplished by wearing the “gospel glasses” which shows what texts “reveal about the nature of God and what does it reveal about me” and how “the grace of God that culminates in Christ’s ministry almost always beacons clearly and powerfully.”[3] Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 states that all Scripture is profitable for correction, etc. but does not mention these two themes.
The Place of the Historical-Grammatical Method
While all of these versions of the redemptive-historic method begin with the historical-grammatical method, they all move beyond the historical-grammatical method. Chapell expresses the need to go beyond the text-driven method of the historical-grammatical approach: “historico-grammatical exegesis requires a preacher to consider a text’s terms in their historical and literary context” but then Chapell adds that “responsible theological interpretation requires an expositor to discern how a text’s ideas function in the wider redemptive context.”[4] Chapell adds that the responsible theologian, i.e., the redemptive-historical interpreter, will use the magnifying glass of the historical/grammatical method and the fish-eye lens of the redemptive/historical method of viewing the text through the grid of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation:
Some meanings we discern by taking out our exegetical magnifying glass [the historical/grammatical method] and studying a text’s particulars in close detail. Other meanings we discern by examining a text with a theological fish-eye lens [the redemptive/historical method] to see how the immediate text relates to texts, messages, events, and developments around it.[5] The fish-eye lens is added to the camera producing a distorted picture. Inadvertently, Chapell has noted that the redemptive/historical method of viewing each passage through the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation distorts the accurate picture that the historical/grammatical interpretation provides.
Chapell further explains this step beyond the historical-grammatical method: “The big story of Scripture moves through the stages of creation, fall, redemption, and final consummation—God made everything good, everything went bad, and, in God’s time, everything will be made perfect. But until that time, all human history subsequent to the fall (including our own history) unfolds within the context of God’s redemptive plan.” All texts are to be viewed through the hermeneutical grid of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. How does this view affect preaching: “The Bible is the revelation of that plan, and no scripture can be fully interpreted without considering that context.”[6]
Consequently, the preacher interprets a text in its context historically according to authorial intent. Then the preacher interprets the passage grammatically, which Roy Zuck defines as “(a) the meaning of words, (b) the form of words, (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationship of words (syntax).” [7] Then, according to the redemptive-historical method, that same text is viewed through the “gospel glasses” of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, and another interpretation is given in addition to the historical-grammatical method.
The Original “Author’s Glasses”
Instead of the preacher wearing the “gospel glasses” and asking what the texts “reveal about the nature of God and what does it reveal about me” and how “the grace of God that culminates in Christ’s ministry almost always beacons clearly and powerfully” the expositor should put on the original “author’s glasses” and ask, “What did the original author intend for the original audience to get from the text?” This is the Text-Driven method of historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
Chapell wrote “Many times I have been asked whether this understanding requires the preacher to mention Jesus in every sermon. I have great respect for those who ask because they are conscience-bound and a Christ-centered approach should not force them to impose on Scripture what it does not say. I consistently respond, “No, I do not think there is a biblical mandate to name Jesus in every sermon. Then I quickly add, “But why wouldn’t you?”[8] This statement seems to contradict another statement that implies some aspect of Christ’s redemption must be located in every text and therefore preached: “Supposed theocentric exposition of a text that does not refer to the redemptive revelation that culminates in Christ truncates the text.”[9]
Other Responses to the Redemptive-Historical Method
Abraham Kuruvilla responds to Chapell’s statement: Why wouldn’t you [name Jesus in every sermon]?” he asks rhetorically. Answer: Because the overwhelming majority of chapters in the Bible do not. I contend that there is no hermeneutical constraint to mention Christ in every sermon, for he is not in every text, no matter what the rhetoric employed. That being said, there is, no doubt, a pragmatic constraint to do so, for one does not know if every listener in attendance is saved. So, the gospel should be presented—somewhere in the worship service (not necessarily in the sermon), by someone (not necessarily by the preacher), somehow (not necessarily in any particular format).[10] Christ is referred to in every service not because Christ is in every text but because the unsaved are in the service and need to hear the good news of salvation.
Kenneth Langley gives another appropriate answer: Chapell acknowledges that we need not necessarily mention Jesus in every sermon but adds, “Why wouldn’t you?” Well, maybe because other parts of the worship service exalt Jesus, and I need every minute of sermon time to say what the text at hand says. Maybe because Christ and redemption were central to the sermon last week, but this week we need to hear about the Father and sovereignty or about the Spirit and inspiration.[11] Langley added: “On a road trip I listened to four sermons John Piper preached on Job 2. The first three did not mention Christ at all, not once; the fourth only in passing. Yet these expositions were Scripture-soaked, theologically rich, and pastorally probing.”[12]
More Resources by Chapell
I am going to refer to a free e-book on this topic: Christ-Centered Preaching & Teaching. Oh, you are welcome!
Ed Stetzer is the editor, and the contributing authors are Daniel Block, David Murray, Walt Kaiser, and Bryan Chapell who all give their different perspectives. At the end of the book, Stetzer shared the results of a panel discussion on how to preach to David and Goliath. One of the panelists, Jon Akin (Pastor of Fairview Church, Lebanon TN) made this comment, “Now, the problem is that I think a strict approach to the historical-grammatical method in homiletics flattens the text. I’m going to argue that misses something.” Here is Jon Akin’s unflattened interpretation of David and Goliath:
You have the anointed one of God who receives the Spirit and goes out into the wilderness where an enemy is presenting himself before the people of God, 40 days and 40 nights. He crushes the enemy’s head. In the Hebrew text, it describes the enemy as wearing snake armor. That sure sounds familiar doesn’t it? Jesus is baptized and receives the Holy Spirit. Out in the wilderness, the serpent is presenting himself 40 days and 40 nights. Then, Jesus withstands the temptation to bypass the cross and in doing that crushes the serpent’s head. In Revelation 12, how do we overcome the evil one? Through the blood of the Lamb. That’s the instrumentality by which the evil one is defeated.[13]
Chapell avoids this extreme of making “Jesus ‘magically’ appear in every Bible passage through exegetical acrobatic.” But Chapell agrees with Akin’s view that “a strict approach to the historical-grammatical method in homiletics” is insufficient. Of the four big themes in the whole Bible Biblical theology or Redemptive-Historical Method: creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, Chapell stresses the fall and redemption as a necessary part of hermeneutics and preaching.
Chapell’s three-step process for Christ-centered preaching
The first step emphasizes the fall and the second and third stress redemption and grace. Chapell writes: “What is the FCF? What does the text say? What’s the Fallen Condition Focus? That is the burden of the text that requires God’s intervention and rescue .... Having identified the FCF we ask, ‘What redemptive or grace principles are evident in the text?’”[14] When the historical-grammatical interpretation is determined, then the redemptive-historical method requires three more steps. Chapell makes this clear: “We examine historical context, genre, narrative features, doctrinal statements, divine actions, surrounding passages, whatever it is that underscores the necessity and the presence of God’s redemptive work on behalf of his people. We’re looking for how grace is getting on the scene to get out of the fallen condition.”[15]
The first step beyond the authorial intent views the text through the grid or the “gospel glasses” of the fall and the second and third step beyond the historical-grammatical method views the text through the grid or the “gospel glasses” of redemption.
Walter Kaiser, summarizes how the Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic goes beyond the historical-grammatical interpretation of a text in its context to a whole Bible approach of biblical theology which includes creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, that places another level of interpretation on top of the author’s intent for his original audience:
Others championed a Christocentric interpretation (also known to some as the “Redemptive-Historical” method of interpreting), in which the interpretation of all biblical texts should be done in such a way that the main theme should be explicitly and directly related to Jesus Christ. But in this method, the emphasis falls on a whole-Bible-focus on God’s work in redemption across the whole canon. While this is beautiful and praiseworthy, it had the potential for substituting the specificity and particularity of individual passages for what was the final work of God in Christ, by always going for the one “big idea” that embraced the whole canon. Much of Christocentric preaching tended to depend on a strong biblical theology … one which then allowed the preacher to leap from anywhere in the biblical text to a call for trust in the Lord Jesus who is the Author of so great a salvation, as recorded of course from one end of Scripture to the other.[16]
The expositor does not need to leap from the text to one of these big Biblical theological themes if creation, fall, redemption, and consummation are not in the text. The preacher needs to don the original “author’s glasses” to see what the author of the text intended for his audience to understand, and then “preach the Word” to his contemporary audience. Scott M. Gibson and Matthew D. Kim in their concluding chapter acknowledge a similar concern: “In Christ-centered preaching, [the Redemptive-Historical View] there is the risk that all sermons may sound the same and do not account for the biblical author’s intentions.”[17]
A Great Resource for Preacher’s Use of Illustrations by Chapell
I have listed two additional sources on Byran Chapell in this post. In addition to these, I would like to recommend Chapell’s Using Illustrations to Preach with Power.” In chapter five “Framing the Picture” Chapell instructs the preacher to tell his illustration like God told His stories or narratives in Scripture. Just as God’s stories have a beginning, middle, and end, so should the preacher’s story illustrations. I’ll stop there. Chapter Five is worth the price of the book.
[1] Scott M. Gibson and Matthew D. Kim. Homiletics and Hermeneutics (p. 2). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[2] Ibid., 11.
[3] Ibid., 19-20.
[4] Ibid., 5.
[5] Ibid., 5.
[6] Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Victor Books,1991, 100-122.
[7] Scott M. Gibson and Matthew D. Kim. Homiletics and Hermeneutics (Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition), 5.
[8] Ibid., 8.
[9] Ibid., 21.
[10] Ibid., 30-32.
[11] Ibid., 37.
[12] Ibid., 37.
[13] Ed Stetzer. Christ-Centered Preaching & Teaching (Nashville: LifeWay Press, 2013, 28.
[14] Bryan Chapell. Christ-Centered Preaching: Preparation and Delivery of Sermons Lecture 23, 5.
[15] Ibid., 5.
[16] Ed Stetzer. Christ-Centered Preaching & Teaching, 14-15.
[17] Scott M. Gibson and Matthew D. Kim. Homiletics and Hermeneutics (Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition), 161.