Skip to main content

Christian Preaching of the Old Testament #9


[This is the ninth post of a serialisation and slight revision of an old essay of mine, in the hope of getting some interaction from others and also making it more accessible. (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,]

The Bridge Paradigm and Salvation-History

It will be obvious by now that I have found Goldsworthy and Greidanus’ approach to the OT a more convincing method of obtaining a Christian reading of the OT than Kaiser and Mathewson’s.  While all authors are without doubt sincere Christians committed to preaching the gospel I would argue that it is the way they treat the assumptions of the Bridge Paradigm that creates the distinction.  Both Kaiser and Mathewson follow a particular school of Bridge Paradigm thought following the popular evangelical homiletician Haddon Robinson.[1]  Robinson’s homiletic is centred on the need to discover a ‘big idea.’[2]  The need to objectively extract a ‘big idea’ from the passage requires the assumption that what we are to read out of any scripture is an idea.  It is useful to contrast this Bridge Paradigm as found in Kaiser and Mathewson with the Salvation-History approach advocated by Goldsworthy and Greidanus.

The Principlizing Bridge assumes that we preach texts, rather than preach the gospel.  The Salvation-History approach, while absolutely committed to grammatico-historical exegesis, assumes that we are to preach Christ from the text.  For Kaiser and Mathewson it is the message of individual texts and the theological and ethical ideas therein that Christians need to hear interpreted.  For Goldsworthy and Greidanus Christians need to hear the history of redemption to challenge them with God’s saving work in Christ.[3]  In the Bridge Paradigm we exegete a text only according to its original meaning, in the Salvation-History approach we first exegete a text in its original meaning but then in its canonical meaning.[4]

The Principlizing Bridge assumes the way to bridge the gap between the OT and modern Christians is timeless abstract principles.  The salvation-history approach argues that there is no gap to be bridged because God’s work in Christ creates continuity between the OT people of God and the present day church.  In the Bridge Paradigm we search the text to see analogies with our own lives, we are the antitype.  In the Salvation-History approach we search the text to relate it to Christ, he is the antitype.[5]

The Principlizing Bridge assumes the goal of preaching is to create a message relevant to its listeners.  The Salvation-History approach argues the goal of preaching is to hear about what God has done for his people, the application comes when we allow that truth to change our lives.

Goldsworthy and Greidanus’s use of a Salvation-History approach obviates the Bridge Paradigm.  As a result they are able to create a distinctly Christian hermeneutic.  Kaiser and Mathewson do recognise the potential validity of a Salvation-Historical approach but it is not the dominant feature of their hermeneutic, but only one possible option after the demands of their prior hermeneutic have been satisfied.



[1] cf, Mathewson, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative,  14, 20, 21, 26, 32, 40, 83, 85-86, 97, 99, 101, 104, 106, 113, 118, 122, 125, 131, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 156, 173, 189, 201, 204-14, 216, 224!; Kaiser, Preaching and teaching from the Old Testament, 55; Haddon Robinson is, by the by, no relation.
[2] Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 33-50
[3] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 235-6
[4] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 231
[5] Goldsworthy, Preaching The Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,  113, 141

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.

Wars and Rumours of Wars

I write in the morning after the USA 2016 Elections, which featured the historic election of Donald Trump. Apart from my personal interested as a resident of planet Earth at this time, it is interesting to note some of the apocalyptic language emerging in discussions of what this means. Even archaeologists are turning to the medium of prophecy. Hear the word of Tobias Stone,
So I feel it’s all inevitable. I don’t know what it will be, but we are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination. Humans will come out the other side, recover and move on.  Stone suggests that future historians will be able to draw clear lines from Brexit to Trump to the 3rd World War, or something equally bad. Mind you, just because historians can draw those lines doesn't mean they are here.

Then there is the word of Thom Hartman who is more interested in the domestic fallout than the fallout shelter. 
The last …

The false link between suicide and mental illness

One characteristic of human society is the tendency to keep doing something over and over again despite it not working. One example would be our approach to incarcerating criminals to punish them instead of rehabilitating them, compounding their trauma and making it harder for them to live productive law-abiding lives when they get out. But this is the "common-sense" approach, the intuitive human response to the failings of others, punish them and they wont dare do it again. It has never worked, ever, but let's keep doing it. Secular society is screwed because it cannot comprehend that its vision is blurred by sin and therefore knee-jerk, common sense solutions are usually destructive and counter-productive.

So it is with our response to suicide. To kill yourself must be the response of the weak minded and sick - so the thinking goes - so to combat rising suicide we treat individuals medically. Yet suicide is a perfectly rational response to a world as broken as ours and…