History

Herman Hermeneut: So we can talk about particular examples. But how do the examples fit into the larger whole?

Fatima Factualist: Something like half of the Bible is about history and events. We had better know what history is about.

A sense of history is indispensable in biblical interpretation. God created a world that has history. The great events of God’s redemption took place in history. In addition, history is the context for the steps in interpretation laid out in the transmission perspective. The once-for-all perspective on interpretation focuses on the original speech of God, within its original historical context, thus demanding attention to history.

So what is history? How do we reckon with it? The coinherence of the three steps in the transmission perspective raises questions about the character of history. Coinherence suggests that the historical moment of the past, the original point when God spoke, cannot be rigidly isolated from the present. The coinherence of the transmission perspective with the once-for-all perspective and the present-time perspective suggests the same thing. In addition, exemplars show the complex connectedness of history. How do we obtain a sound understanding of history?

Remember where we started when we developed the transmission perspective. We started with God’s communication. The Father speaks the Word through the Spirit. He speaks to the Spirit as hearer. We can use this same starting point for understanding history. God’s speaking and acting go together. In particular, God’s speaking offers a perspective on all events in history. Creation took place through God speaking: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6). All events proceed according to his word: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lam. 3:37-38; cf. Eph. 1:11).

If history matches God’s verbal decrees, we would expect that events of history show a structure similar to what we have already found with respect to God’s speech. Moreover, human beings, made in the image of God, reflect aspects of God’s character in a particular way. Hence, we expect that human action will reflect the characteristics of divine action. Divine action always includes divine speaking. Hence human action on a broad scale should have a quasilinguistic character.¹

Unity and diversity in history

For example, according to our earlier discussion there is unity and diversity in meaning. By analogy, we expect that there is unity and diversity to the character of historical events. Many different truths about many different subjects hold together within the unity of God’s plan. In this sense we find unity and diversity in the truth. This unity and diversity includes truth about historical events. We can apply the partitional triad, the classificational, instantiational, and associational aspects.

First, in accordance with the classificational aspect, each historical event is classifiable. It belongs to one or another kind. We find events of war, celebration, agriculture, birth, death, marriage, and so on. We understand the past partly by comparison with our own experience. We know about war, celebration, agriculture, and so on in our own time. Because human beings are made in the image of God, there is a certain constancy to human nature. Even though cultures and times differ, they differ within limits. The element of constancy guarantees that understanding other people in other times is possible.

Next, consider the instantiational aspect. Each historical event is particular. It is this event, at this time and this place, never identical with any other event in all its details—if only because the other events happen at other times or places.

Third, the associational aspect indicates that history hangs together. The events affect one another in causal ways, and their overall meaning depends on fitting together as complementary events into a total plan of God for history (Eph. 1:11).

As usual, the three aspects hold together. They coinhere. Any one aspect offers a perspective on the others; no one aspect can really be understood except as it presupposes and encompasses the others.

Perspectives on history

The perspectives from transmissional hermeneutics can also become perspectives on understanding history. Thus we have potentially three alternative perspectives on any historical event. According to the once-for-all perspective, each event takes place in order to provide a development and a significance for the whole rest of history. All the rest of history becomes a kind of “audience” addressed by the one event. The event “speaks to” and affects all the subsequent ages.

Second, we may use the transmission perspective. According to the transmission perspective, history is a development in time, in which each event takes place to affect its immediate future, and that later situation affects a still later situation, and so on. The interaction is spread out through a time line.

Third, according to the present perspective, all understanding of history takes place now, in our present meditation on the record of the past. The past is available to us only in the present, through records that still exist in the present, and through memories of the past that exist in the present. Interpreting history is a responsibility that confronts us in the present.

Modern secular approaches to history refuse to acknowledge that God is Lord of history. So it is difficult for them to acknowledge or appreciate the coinherence of these various perspectives. In a truncated form of the transmission perspective, history remains connected only by immediate antecedents and immediate succession, not by an overall plan. By contrast, in the Bible the end, the consummation, recapitulates aspects inherent at the beginning (Rev. 22:1-5). The new creation is a new paradise, a new Garden of Eden. The resurrection of Christ in the past forms the foundation for the spiritual resurrection of Christians to eternal life in the present (Col. 3:1). And its forms the foundation for the bodily resurrection of Christians in the future (1 Cor. 15:22-23, 49). Such a view depends on our knowing that God is one, that he has a plan for the whole, that the plan is unified, that it will not fail to be accomplished.

In other words, events in history are related to one another, not only to events immediately before and after, but to the entire plan of God for the whole of history. Each particular event is significant because it has a place in the whole and is connected to the whole. The resurrection of Christ has an effect not merely on the apostles to whom Christ first appeared, but on us who are united to Christ by faith. We experience resurrection power from that resurrection (Phil. 3:10). The effects of the resurrection do not consist merely in a short-term causal sequence, but touch us directly today. Moreover, in one sense the pattern of the resurrection extends backward as well as forward in time. God reckoned beforehand with the events that were still future (Rom. 3:25). He was gracious and forgiving to people in the Old Testament because of the sacrifice of Christ that was still to come. He put in place animal sacrifices in the Old Testament that prefigured the coming sacrifice.

In a whole host of ways, the associational perspective is significant. Typological patterns or symbolic patterns reappear over long stretches of history. Within the biblical view, then, history contains connections of many, richer kinds that the modern secularist conceives. Modern secular treatments still acknowledge in some fashion that each event is unique (the instantiational perspective). They acknowledge that each event can be classified according to more general patterns (the classificational perspective). But they tend to fail in appreciating the associational perspective. We shall therefore devote particular attention to this perspective.

We have already briefly considered the death and resurrection of Christ, which are at the very center of history and which cast their light and the power of their effects on all history. But let us consider how the associational aspect belongs even to minor examples.

An example in 2 Kings 14:5

In 2 Kings 14:5 we read, “After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he [Amaziah] executed the officials who had murdered his father the king.” This one event is intelligible in relation to other events. For the benefit of our understanding we should take into account all kinds of relations. There are relations to immediately preceding and succeeding actions. The immediately preceding assassination is the judicial and emotional basis for Amaziah’s decision. Amaziah’s knowledge of the Mosaic law may also be a factor.² What about the consequences of Amaziah’s action? The narrator does not note any obvious consequences. But we know that the Scripture commends Amaziah’s action as righteous. And other biblical texts indicate that God blesses the righteous; hence any of a number of subsequent events may be an effect of Amaziah’s righteous act.

From the Bible, as well as from modern experience, we know that one of the effects of punishing crimes is to induce fear of doing the crime (Deut. 19:20). As people saw Amaziah’s righteousness in action, they would be more ready to submit to his rule, and more fearful of undertaking further assassinations.

These, then, are more immediate connections in time. There are also more remote connections. As with language, so with history, the connections extend in many directions and many dimensions.

Amaziah’s action is connected with all other attempts throughout history in which monarchs punish assassinations and assassination attempts. It is connected with all the power-plays and calculations by which people attempt to obtain or increase their political power. It is also connected, by way of contrast, with the failures of weak people in power to maintain control. By way of 2 Kings 14:6 it is connected with all the penal sanctions of the law of Moses. All these instances offer manifestations of the way in which people deal with the issue of justice and fitting punishment for wrong-doing.

This event involving Amaziah is connected with the ups and downs of Israelite history in 1 Kings and 2 Kings. We see a succession of more or less righteous kings, and more or less evil kings, ending with appalling failure in the exile. Amaziah’s one action was righteous, and he is evaluated as basically a good king with a significant failure (2 Kings 14:3-4). But his life ends in a disastrous defeat (2 Kings 14:11-14). This defeat presages the exile to come. Note the close parallel between earlier and later destruction. In 2 Kings 14:13-14 the wall is destroyed and captives and valuables are taken. In 2 Kings 25:1-21 there is still greater destruction and captivity and the desolation of the exile. Hence the issue of true righteousness looms large in the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings. Amaziah’s one action is righteous. It may for a time stem the assaults on the throne of David. But is it enough to stem the broader tide of national rebellion against God? Ultimately it is not; unrighteousness creeps into Amaziah himself when his pride keeps him from listening to Jehoash’s warning (14:9-11).

1 and 2 Kings, by ending with the gloom of the exile, cry out for an answer. David’s descendants utterly failed, and were finally saved from a totally outside source by an act of sheer grace (2 Kings 25:27-30). In the long run, the throne of David needs to be established in a manner free from assassination attempts and free from internal corruption of heart as well. so Isaiah 9:5-7 answers: it announces an everlasting king from the line of David.

Thus the action in 14:5 is typologically related to the reign of Christ. Amaziah put down his father’s assassins, but it was only a temporary measure, a stop-gap. In his resurrection Christ put down his own assassins, and established righteousness permanently free from external assassination and from internal corruption. The kings and rulers plot assassination “against the LORD and against his Anointed One” (Ps. 2:2). They appear to succeed for a time by assassinating the Anointed One (Acts 4:26-28). But God answers:

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.” (Ps. 2:4-6)

Christ, established as king, executes perfect justice:

… with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. (Isa. 11:4-5)

In Christ’s kingdom, the sons of the kingdom are not liable for the assassination accomplished by their fathers, that is, the sinful sons of Adam. After mentioning the assassination of the King, for which we are guilty (Acts 3:13-14), Peter says, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

The connection between Amaziah’s action and the resurrection of Christ is not merely accidental or external, but real. Consider: Amaziah acted righteously. He acted in accordance with the specifications of the Mosaic law. But where does out standard of righteousness come from? Mosaic law is a reflection of the righteousness of God. And this righteousness of God is supremely revealed in the resurrection of Christ, which is not only his legal vindication but ours: “[he] was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

We can arrive at the same conclusion but considering goodness instead of righteousness. It is good for people to be under a righteous ruler. It is a blessing (Prov. 28:12; 29:2; Eccles. 10:17). We have already observed that swift justice to assassins tends to enhance the stability of a kingdom, and may thus be one means of increasing peace and prosperity.

Now the Bible teaches that good things like these always come from God (Acts 14:17; James 1:17). God manifests his goodness in the act of Amaziah. Moreover, this goodness comes to people who do not deserve it, for they are sinners. Hence we must see here not only the goodness of God but his mercy. God has been merciful to the people of Israel by causing Amaziah to act in a righteous way. How has God found it possible to be both merciful and just? In mercy he appears to “overlook” sins (Rom. 3:25), while in justice he must punish them. The solution is found in Christ: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:25). Hence he is “just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). The crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ are therefore the ultimate basis for mercy even in Old Testament times. They are the basis, then, for the display of goodness and mercy through Amaziah.

Amaziah, then, is a mediator of God’s goodness, mercy, and justice. He is also a king in the line of David, the line in which God focuses the promise of the great Messianic king. Hence, in the providence of God, the action of Amaziah is linked like a type to the greater, climactic action in Christ’s resurrection.

Other kinds of connections

Events are also connected to one another by the ways in which they display the attributes of God. For example, God is always just. God acts in events of history. From the expressive perspective and from the perspective of personal presence, we expect that God displays his justice in every event. Hence all events show a common patterning belonging to God’s justice.

Similarly, all events show common patterns belonging to God’s redemption. God liberates; God conquers evil; God operates on the basis of substitution and forgiveness founded in Christ. God gives life, works propitiation and reconciliation, and reveals wisdom.

All these ways of describing redemption are true. But none is merely a pat formula. All these descriptions talk about a work of God that is infinitely wise and deep. We do not exhaustively comprehend any one description, nor do we comprehend fully the relation of the various descriptions to one another. God’s wisdom in language is unfathomable, and likewise his wisdom in historical action is unfathomable. The patterning of history is not reducible to a pat formula.

Moreover, God exercises his creativity in history. Hence, every historical event is unique. The patterns are multidimensional and interlocking. We never arrive at a complete list of all possible dimensions of patterning. Rather, we must go and read the Bible again. We must understand in increasing depth what God has done. And subordinately, we are called to understand what he is doing, both in our lives, in surrounding communities, and in extrabiblical history of past eras.

Classifying connections

Though we can never exhaust the possibilities for kinds of connections, we begin to make some simple classifications. What kinds of connections does this historical event have with other events? For convenience we may organize our discussion using another perspectival triad, namely the triad of unit, hierarchy, and context.³ First, each unified historical event or incident has a unity and identifiable features. It is a coherent unit. It belongs to a distinct class of event. Amaziah’s punishment belongs to the class, “punishment of assassins.” Second, each event or incident is embedded in a larger context of a historical and cultural situation. It belongs in a context. Third, each event is a small part of a hierarchy of progressively larger events spread out in time. For example, Amaziah’s pronouncement of judicial judgment is a small event within the larger complex events including the entire process of dealing with the aftermath of the assassination. The aftermath of the assassination is one part of the total time of Amaziah’s reign. Amaziah’s reign is in turn a small part within the record of the reigns of the kings of Judah. And this history of reigns is one act within the larger history from creation to the incarnation of Christ. The progressively larger complexes of events form a hierarchy of events.

Let us take as our exemplar the resurrection of Christ. It is a unique event or unique unit of history. But in an obvious way it is connected with all other instances of bodily resurrection:⁴ the raising of the widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24), the raising of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:18-37), the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:18-26), and the raising of Lazarus (John 11). it belongs to the class, “bodily resurrection.”

A second type of connection is a connection by contiguity or hierarchy. The resurrection of Christ is one incident in a series of incidents in the life of Christ. These incidents are grouped into larger and smaller groups of incidents. The resurrection is part of a larger series of incidents including the events of burial and the incidents of Christ’s postresurrection appearances. These incidents in turn form the denouement to a larger narrative encompassing the whole earthly life of Christ. And the earthly life of Christ is at the center of a larger history spanning centuries.

The third perspective is the contextual perspective. Within this perspective we focus on metaphoric or analogical connections between the resurrection of Christ and other events. The analogies are of many kinds. OT animal sacrifice cleanses the worshiper from sin. Isaac is to be sacrificed, and then is received back to life, “resurrected” in a figurative sense (Heb. 11:19). When Noah is rescued from the flood and the Israelites are rescued from the Red Sea, they received life after passing through the waters of death. Jonah comes back from a watery death (Jonah 2:5-7). Jeremiah is raised up from the pit (Jer. 38:6-13). And so on.

Now let us a generalize. A unit in language or an event in history enjoys connections with other units sharing the same features. It belongs to a class of units of the same kind. The older linguistic terminology of “paradigmatic relations” is an aspect of this kind of connection. Thus, the unital perspective is closely related to the classificational perspective. The archetype for units is the unity of God, which is also associated with God the Father.

Units in language and events in history group together on the basis of contiguity in space and time. The older linguistic terminology called this kind of connectivity “syntactic” or “metonymic.” The ultimate historical exemplar for this time-and-space-based connectivity is the incarnation of Christ. Connection by contiguity thus rests on the instantiational perspective, deriving from the Person of God the Son.

Units in language and events in history also group together contextually on the basis of metaphoric and analogical relations. The presence of analogy enables to see one truth or one event through the perspective of another, by virtue of their associations and their theological “concurrence” in the plan of God. The connection through analogy rests on the associational perspective and the Person of God the Holy Spirit.

As usual, the three aspects (unit, hierarchy, and context) are perspectivally related. They are correlative to one another and coinherent. The same holds for the three kinds of connections: connections by common features, connections by contiguity, and connections by analogy or association. Units always occur in a hierarchy of smaller and larger units in which they are embedded. They and their identifying features are intelligible and identifiable only through hierarchy and context. And of course hierarchy and context are contentless without units to fill them. In the end, all three mutually involve one another.

Now let us illustrate with some further examples.

The sin offering in Leviticus 9:8-11

Consider the sin offering described in Leviticus 9:8-11. First, we find connections of elementary classification closely related to unit. This particular event is an instance of a sin offering. It is connected with all other instances of sin offerings made by Aaron, and more broadly with all instances of sin offering whatsoever. All sin offerings are also connected with the other types of animal sacrifice described in Leviticus 1-5 and with the sacrifices of the patriarchs before the time of Moses. These different kinds and instances have complex relations of similarity and dissimilarity to one another. All animal sacrifices have some similarities (e.g., the fat and the blood are never eaten). Sin offerings have some distinctive aspects. For example, some of the blood is put on the horns of the bronze altar or the altar of incense. The flesh is not eaten by the one presenting the offering, but neither is it burned on the altar. The particular instance of sin offering in Leviticus 9:8-11 has features distinguishing it from all other instances of sin offering (in particular, the time and particular circumstances are distinct).

Second, there are part-whole relations, that is, relations governed by hierarchy. The entire act of making the sin offering has connections with the various subordinate steps within the whole. For example, we see Aaron slaughtering the calf, the sons bringing the blood, Aaron dipping his finger in the blood and sprinkling, Aaron pouring out the rest of the blood, Aaron burning the fat, Aaron taking the carcass outside the camp, Aaron burning the carcass. The whole can be decomposed into smaller parts. Likewise, this particular sin offering is a part belonging to a larger whole. The sin offering goes together with the burnt offering (9:12-14), offerings for the people (9:15-21), blessing (9:22), and God’s response (9:23-24). Together these actions fit into the total rite for consecrating Aaron and his sons (Lev. 8-9). This rite of consecration fits into a larger cycle of events affirming and honoring the holiness of God’s presence among the Israelites (Ex. 25-Lev. 27).

Many of the more interesting sorts of connections have to do with contextual connections. For instance, animal sacrifices are related to creation, to redemption, and to consummation.⁵

Let us consider creation first. The institution of animal sacrifice depends on elements in creation in several ways. Animals are what they are according to God’s word of creation. On the sixth day God created the animals and defined the unique existence of each kind. To be an animal is to be subject to God’s creative word concerning animals. Moreover, God gave man dominion over animals. This dominion becomes one of the reasons why it is fitting for human beings to be given authority to offer animal sacrifices.

The sin offering presupposes the existence of sin. Since there was no sin in the original created order, the detailed significance of the sin offering has no direct analogue in creation. But there are still some noteworthy elements of analogy. Adam in his disobedience was a representative for all his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). By analogy the animal sacrifice represents the worshipers.

Next, consider the consummation. The way in which animal sacrifice is appointed to deal with sin anticipates the final elimination of sin in the consummation. God undertook a symbolic form of judgment and reconciliation with the sin offering. He achieves consummate judgment and reconciliation at the last day.

Sin offering has the closest analogies with redemption, since sin exists in the world only in the period from the fall to just before the consummation. The animal sacrifices, including the sin offering in particular, were instituted by God to point forward to the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 13:11-12).

The entire span of time in which redemption takes place extends from the fall of Adam to the second coming of Christ. Within this time span, sin offering is connected most obviously with the crucifixion of Christ (Heb. 13:11-12). But we may also inquire how it is related to the beginnings of sin and redemption in the fall, how it is related to the end of redemption in the Second Coming, and how it is related to any event in between.

Sin offering is related to the fall by the fact that the fall introduces sin. Sin offering is an ordinance responding to this problem. Moreover, in the narrative of the fall the promise of God (Gen. 3:15) and the gracious action of God (3:21) hint at the coming of an eventual remedy for sin. The initial symbolic level of remedy involves the use of dead animals (3:21), which is related at least distantly to the later use of animals in sacrifice.

How is sin offering related to the Second Coming? At the Second Coming Christ removes sin from the world by triumphant war. The removal is analogous to the symbolic removal of sin from the people by the effect of the sin offering. When Christ returns, the whole world is made holy, hence sin must be completely removed (Matt. 13:41-43).

Sin offerings are connected to individuals, the community, and the cosmos. In the first place, the technical details of sin offerings indicate that different types of sin offerings are given for the high priest, for the community as a whole, for a leader, and for an ordinary member of the community (Lev. 4:1-35). On the day of his consecration Aaron offers one sin offering for himself and a second, distinct one for the people (Lev. 9:8-11, 15). But even the sin offering for himself concerns his capacity to serve as priest, where he represents the people. Hence the sin offering for Aaron is indirectly relevant for the people as well. The animal represents Aaron as a single person. But through Aaron who represents the people, the animal comes to represent the people as well

Now consider the case where the sin offering is offered for the people. It is still Aaron who does the officiating. He does so in his official representative capacity. The status of priest and the status of people are bound up together. The animal in this case represents the people first of all. But subordinately it is related to the single person of Aaron. And because it is a whole animal with its own singularity, it expresses the unity belonging to the single community.

Each kind of sin offering points to the other, and both kinds are part of a larger complex dealing with the intertwining aspects of sin. Sin is both individual and communal in its effects and in the ways that it spreads. Hence, by analogy with this situation, Christ’s one final sacrifice cleanses both individual Christians and the church, the community of faith (Eph. 5:27).

So far we have discussed how a sin offering can have connections with both individual and community. How does it have connections with the cosmos? Christ’s sacrifice is the basis for the renewal of the whole universe (Rom. 8:18-22). The subhuman elements of the universe are not themselves sinful, but were “subjected to frustration” because of the fall. Sin affects them, and renewal affects them as well.

The cosmic implications of sacrifice are tacitly included in some of the associations of the sin offering in Leviticus 9. To see this, recall that the tabernacle was made according to the pattern that Moses received on Mount Sinai (Ex. 25:9). Both the tabernacle and the Solomonic temple were images of God’s heavenly dwelling (1 Kings 8:27, 32, 34, 36, etc.; Heb. 8:5). The sin offering was slaughtered in the court and the blood presented on the horns of one of the altars. This procedure must have a heavenly analogue. Correspondingly, Christ was put to death on earth, but ministers in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:4; 9:11-14). By the blood of the Old Testament sin offering the worshipers and the tabernacle are cleansed with respect to symbolic defilement (Lev. 4:20, 26, 35; 16:16, 19-20; Heb. 9:9-10, 13, 21-22). By the blood of Christ the worshipers and the world are cleansed (Heb. 9:23; 10:14).

Central connections and more distant connections

We have so far focused on the task of simply enumerating various kinds of connections. But it is well to emphasize the centrality of Christ’s work. The Old Testament as a whole is designed to testify beforehand to Christ (Luke 24:44-47).

The animal sacrifices in particular point forward to Christ (Heb. 9:9-14). They do so by showing parallels or analogies to Christ’s work (Heb. 9:13-14). Before Christ’s crucifixion they served as channels whereby the benefits of his crucifixion came to the faithful. At the same time, they were in themselves insufficient and imperfect. They thereby testify that something better and more permanent is to come (Heb. 10:1-22). God ordains the animal sacrifices in order to fulfill exactly these purposes (Heb. 9:8-10). Hence, all in all, Christ is the key for understanding the significance that God intends for these sacrifices.

We can also observe that through Christ the particular event in Leviticus 9:8-11 is distantly related to an endless host of other events. Christ’s sacrifice, in its very uniqueness, forms the pattern that is manifested in various ways throughout history. God liberated us once and for all in Christ’s resurrection. Hence a pattern of God acting to liberate occurs throughout history. God warred against evil in Christ’s crucifixion. Hence a pattern of holy war occurs throughout history. And so on.

Now Old Testament sin offering foreshadows some of the pattern of Christ’s work to come. This pattern of Christ’s work is in turn reflected throughout history. Hence, a sin offering is patterned in a way that is reflected throughout history.

The sin offering concerns the removal of retribution and punishment. Hence penal substitution, forgiveness, propitiation, and reconciliation seem to be suggested more than some of the other concerns. Penal substitution, forgiveness, propitiation, and reconciliation are accomplished once and for all in Christ’s sacrifice. But that once-for-all accomplishment is the very foundation for working out substitution, forgiveness, propitiation, and reconciliation on a human level, among different groups of human beings in their relation to one another as well as in their relation to God. As people are united to Christ, they receive forgiveness and reconciliation with God. They are then to forgive and be reconciled to one another. Hence, human relations throughout history show correlations with the sin offering, by imitating it on a lower level.

Analogy between historical events

The sin offering in Leviticus 9:8-11 is only one example. We see through this one example the kinds of connections that a particular historical event enjoys with other events. We could have chosen some other example. To be sure, sin offering has some advantages. The Book of Hebrews makes explicit some of its connections with other events, and with Christ’s work in particular. Sin offering has a prominent role in the whole tabernacle system, which foreshadows Christ’s redemption in an elaborate way. Not everything in the Bible has an identical function or enjoys identical significance. Some elements are more prominent, and some have a more direct function of serving as “shadows.”

Because Christ’s work in central to history, any event whatsoever enjoys salient connections with the work of Christ. The connections may sometimes be less obvious, less striking, less thorough. We may even see connections between the work of Christ and its counterfeit opposites, the false redemptions of false religion. Such connections are to be expected.

First of all, connections must exist because of the very character of God. There is one plan of God for all history, and this plan displays the unity of his wisdom. God is present and active in all events. All events therefore display his deity, “his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20).

Second, connections exist because of redemption. Sin and its perverse results, wherever they occur, need the same remedy. And there is only one remedy, namely Christ.

Third, connections exist because of the presence of persons. All human beings are made in God’s image. As such, they present us with similar patterns of action. They image God, and in particular image the divine Son who is the original image (Col. 1:15).⁶

Because God is infinite and infinitely wise, the connections in his thought are infinitely rich and ramified. The creation is finite, not infinite, but it displays the wisdom of our infinite God. Hence the connections among historical events are incredibly rich, pervasive, and ramified.

But this richness is not chaos. Some connections are more salient and more prominent. For example, sin offerings are not related equally strongly to every event in the Gospels; they relate preeminently to the crucifixion (Heb. 13:11-12).

In addition, the kinds of connections can be classified. We can distinguish various kinds of connections from one another, and we can understand what sorts of things we are comparing in any particular case.

For instance, when we compare one sin offering to other instances of sin offering, we understand that we are comparing events that have the same label or classification in the eyes of Israelites. They have clear similarities displayed in common sequences of events and common use of various parts of the animal. On the other hand, when we compare a sin offering to the sacrifice of Christ, we understand that we are comparing shadow to reality, insufficient to sufficient, preliminary to final. There is not necessarily an exact one-to-one correspondence between each step in the sequence of sin offering and each step in the crucifixion of Christ. And even when we may find a more detailed correspondence, the correspondence passes from one sphere of action to another, from animal to human person, from earth to heaven.

An example of warfare: 1 Samuel 13:5

Consider now an example from 1 Samuel 13:5:

The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Micmash, east of Beth Aven. (NIV)

This text fits naturally with other cases of war between Israel and Philistia. In the Old Testament God enters into war, bringing Israel to victory. Or when Israel is disobedient and falls away from God, God brings them defeat. The theme of divine holy war thus stands behind the human warfare.

Moreover, the theme of kingship is important. God appointed Saul king in response to the people’s desire. In this passage we are about to see what Saul would do, in response to the people’s desire that the king would lead them in war. 1 Samuel is largely devoted to the question of the right and wrong kind of king, as represented by David and Saul respectively. God wins a decisive victory for Israel through David’s contest with Goliath (1 Sam. 17). This victory for David foreshadows God’s eschatological war, in which Christ defeats Satan, both on the cross and at the last day.

In 1 Samuel 13:5 the Philistines gather in a threatening way, probably in response to the earlier challenge to their authority in verses 3-4. Their movements challenge Saul and his men to engage in battle. What will Saul do? In addition, what will God do through Saul, as part of his total purpose of waging war against his enemies on behalf of his people? Jonathan’s successes through faith indicate on a small scale what God will do in the future for the whole world. But can we find a man that will have the faithfulness of Jonathan rather than the inconsistency of Saul? David then appears. The impermanent and partial character of David’s successes, not to mention his eventual moral failures, make us look to the future Messianic king of Isaiah 11:1-9 and the war waged by God himself in Isaiah 27:1.

Hence, through the theme of holy war, the passage in 1 Samuel 13:5 enjoys linkages with the entire scope of redemption. These linkages are not necessarily the only linkages or the most prominent linkages, but they nevertheless exist.

Consider then a few of the ways in which the verse in 1 Samuel 13:5 is connected to other passages.

First, there are connections through common features. The Philistine challenge is connected to all other challenges brought about by military movements. It is connected first of all to other instances of conflict between Saul and his enemies, then more broadly to instances of conflict between the people of God and their enemies, then still more broadly to all instances of conflict whatsoever.

Second, there are part-whole relations (hierarchy). This challenge could in principle be analyzed into smaller parts, involving the assembling, the going up, and the encamping. We could watch the movement of individual warriors. There are also larger wholes of which verse 5 is a part. Verse 5 is part of a movement-and-response package in 1 Samuel 13:5-10. But the response eventually aborts when Saul fails to keep faith (verse 9). This whole series in 13:5-10 is in turn part of a larger engagement with the Philistines in 1 Samuel 13:2-14:26. This larger engagement is part of the larger history of Samuel, Saul, and David in 1-2 Samuel.

Third, there are contextual connections. As with animal sacrifice, so here, we can ask about relations to creation, redemption, and consummation. The Philistine military action presupposes the human abilities of organization, planning, manufacture of weapons, and dominion given to man in creation. Yet the air of conflict also contrasts with the original paradisiacal situation of peace.

The connection with the consummation is also mostly one of contrast: in the consummation there is final peace (Isa. 2:4). The redeemed nations assemble to honor God and to become his people rather than to dishonor him and war against him (Rev. 21:26-27).

The connection with redemption can be divided into three principal stages, the fall, the earthly work of Christ, and the second coming of Christ. The fall originates the hatred leading to killing and war (Gen. 4:8; 4:24; 6:4-5), as well as the focused enmity between the holy offspring and the offspring of the serpent (Gen. 3:15; 4:4-5; 6:9-11). The roots of holy war are found in the promise of enmity in Genesis 3:15. As wickedness grows, the wicked assemble themselves in their thousands, with the weapons produced by their growing power. The climactic assembly of the wicked takes place with the crucifixion (Acts 4:25-26). In Revelation 20:8 the wicked assemble a final time in order to experience final defeat.

The connections are individual, corporate, and cosmic.

First, they are corporate. 1 Samuel 13:5 focuses on the corporate conflict between two peoples, Philistines and Israel.

Second, the connections are individual. The conflict comes to a focus in the conflict between two representative individuals, David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17). Even before it reaches this point, Saul and Jonathan function as representative individuals, whose faith or lack of faith determines the outcome for their troops.

Third, the connections are cosmic. The cosmic significance of the conflict is not explicit; it is well in the background in the account in 1 Samuel 13. But in the Ancient Near East generally people thought that the gods participated in battle. When Israel was in conflict with the Philistines, the conflict included conflict between Yahweh, Israel’s God, and the gods of the Philistines (note the conflict with Dagon in 1 Sam. 5 and the mention of gods in 1 Sam. 17:43). Thus the conflict included the spiritual sphere as well as earthly armies. Saul recognizes the importance of sacrificial offering in 13:9. Jonathan explicitly appeals to the Lord’s involvement in 14:6.

An example of praise: Ezra 3:11

We take as another example Ezra 3:11. Ezra 3:11 says,

With praise and thanksgiving they sang to the Lord:

“He is good;

his love to Israel endures forever.”

And all the people gave a great shout of praise to the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid.

Ezra 3:11 occurs within the account of restoration of temple worship, as part of the larger process of restoration from captivity. The restoration is a veritable deliverance, inaugurated by an “anointed” leader (Isa. 45:1). It thus parallels the deliverance from Egypt (Isa. 51:9-11). The idols of Babylon correspond to the earlier idols in Egypt. As in Exodus 15:17, the victory of God the warrior results in the people possessing God’s inheritance and building a sanctuary. Praise is one aspect of celebrating the victory. Moreover, the actual words of praise in verse 11 are connected to the words used repeatedly in celebrating God’s various victories of the past (Pss. 118; 136). Thus Ezra 3:11 evokes an element in a larger pattern, the pattern of divine war, victory, and celebration.

We could therefore follow the linkages with the theme of divine war. But in Ezra 3 there is undoubtedly more prominence on the theme of worship and the theme of the temple as the place of God’s presence. We can choose to look at the connections of this kind.

Ezra 3 stresses the connections with the law of Moses (verse 2), thereby making one think of the parallel with the construction of the tabernacle. We can also list instances relating to the establishment of worship in the time of David and Solomon (1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 7:3).

As usual, we can roughly classify the different types of connections.

First, there are connections of classification. The praise in Ezra 3:11 is one instance related to other instances of praise, some using almost the same words, and some using quite different words. The singing links the passage with the entire body of singing in the Book of Psalms.

Second, there are connections of part and whole. The action in verse 11 can be further analyzed or subdivided into parts, such as the individual lines sung by the Levites, the shout of the people, and the preceding action of laying the foundation of the temple. Verse 11 mentions actions that fit into larger wholes: the whole incident of foundation-laying in Ezra 3; the ups and downs of progress in restoration in Ezra 3-6; the entire story of restoration in the Book of Ezra.

Third, there are connections by contextual association. Ezra 3:11 is connected to instances of celebration of God’s triumph, victory, and presence.

The praise in Ezra 3:11 is related backwards to creation. Of course, in creation God gave human beings the capacity to appreciate him, to praise him, and to build in his honor. But the connections do not end there. In the creation of the world, God built a macrocosmic house to dwell in (Ps. 104:1-3; Amos 9:6; Job 38:4-6). The angels sang in praise in response (Job 38:7), and God in a sense “praised” his own work by pronouncing it “very good.”

Ezra 3:11 is related forwards to the consummation. The consummation builds a new temple, the new Jerusalem, in which perfect praise comes to God (Rev. 19:5-8; 21:1-22:5).

The praise in Ezra is related also to the redemptive work of Christ on earth. Through Christ’s resurrection and the pouring out of the Spirit, Christ builds the new temple, the church (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:10-17). Christ himself praises the Father, and the church joins in praise (Heb. 2:12; Rom. 15:5-13).

Within the total historical scope of redemption, we can distinguish various stages. For example, we may ask about what happens at the Fall, at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, and in the final conflict at the Second Coming, as well as at any intermediate points.

The Fall is a turning away from true thanksgiving to God. Instead of thanking God for the bounty of the garden, Adam and Eve seized the fruit illicitly. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, the original sanctuary (cf. Ezek. 28:13-14). Genesis 4:26 shows a beginning in the restoration of praise, but only in a very small way. Similarly, the restoration of Ezra was small and disappointing (Ezra 3:12).

The time of final conflict at the Second Coming displays praise for deliverance of a faithful remnant over against an unfaithful world (Rev. 7:9-12; 19:1-4). Revelation calls the faithful to persevere in true worship of God even in the midst of feelings of being small themselves and surrounded by impressive opposition (Rev. 3:8; 13:5-10).

Clustering of divine action

In the above examples we have dealt with the time from the Fall to the Second Coming only in a very superficial, schematic way. We have singled out three foci, the fall of Adam, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming. To be sure, these three events are absolutely crucial in understanding history as a whole. But the Bible records much that took place between these events. Much happened (and is still happening) that the Bible does not record.

We must not imagine that the landscape in between these three crucial events is simply flat. Neither does it rise slowly and uniformly toward a climax. Rather, God’s crucial works cluster in groups. There are crucial periods: the time of Noah’s flood; the time of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph; the time of the exodus and conquest; the time of David and Solomon; the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; the time of restoration. The thematic connections and contextual connections that we have explored may be expected to be stronger when we come to the great acts of redemption, especially the exodus.

Even within Jesus’ earthly life there are several discernible periods with different texture: the time before John the Baptist; the public ministry, including healing, teaching, and exorcism; the journey to Jerusalem; the last days; the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. In Acts we find a development from Jerusalem and Judea to Samaria and the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

When we are sensitive to historical connections, we do not overlook these differences in texture. We try to understand the uniqueness of each event, and the uniqueness of clusters of events as well. The connections do not undermine uniqueness, but are fully compatible with it.

I have tried to illustrate the connectedness of history using fairly small and apparently insignificant events within the OT. It should be apparent that connections are important in the case of the more outstanding and significant events. Creation, exodus, restoration from Babylon, redemption in Christ, and the consummation are all woven together in a remarkable way in the prophecies of Isaiah 40-66. Tabernacle, sacrifice, and redemption are woven together in Hebrews. Imagery from the whole OT is woven together in Revelation. Building on such biblical resources as these, we also have today any number of works in biblical theology that endeavor to sensitize us to the richness of the connections. I may cite as starting points Edmund P. Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1988); Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966); O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1980); Mark R. Strom, Days Are Coming: Exploring Biblical Patterns (Sydney: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989); George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969).

Grammatical-historical interpretation

We see that rich connections exist among the historical events in the Bible. Now what do we do with these connections in our interpretation?

Interpretation of the Bible involves both a linguistic side, focusing on the language of the Bible, and a historical side, focusing on the events and the contexts in which they occur. As the once-for-all perspective reminds us, the authority and holiness of God demand our paying attention to the original context of God’s speech, in both its linguistic and its historical aspects. Thus we may speak of grammatical-historical interpretation. Grammatical historical interpretation focuses on the original context. But as our reflections have shown, its reflections cohere with the later transmission, the modern reception, and the significance of events in the total plan of God. Thus, rightly understood, grammatical-historical interpretation is a perspective on a total engagement with God and a total process that interacts with everything that we know of God and includes our transformation into the image of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). The grammatical aspect of the original context coheres with the speaking of God throughout history. The historical aspect of the original context coheres with the action of God and the plan of God throughout history. And our own understanding of both aspects undergoes progressive transformation in our own individual and corporate history in the church today.

But most scholars today do not understand grammatical-historical interpretation in this way. Rather, grammatical analysis can supposedly isolate the facts of ancient languages and the meanings that a text sets forth by means of them. Language is reduced -to a highly complex but essentially mechanical system. Historical analysis can supposedly isolate the facts of ancient historical events within the immediate environment in space and time. We rigidly exclude any reckoning with divine purpose or with events distant in time (such as the events of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection). Pure isolation is in fact impossible; but the attempt to produce isolation introduces distortions.

The modern scene presents us with still other options. Some representatives of New Criticism or reader-response approaches reject grammatical-historical interpretation, seeing it as an undesirable goal.⁷ Some forms of liberation theology would reject grammatical-historical interpretation as an inauthentic flight from the necessity of an engaged political stance deriving from the needs in the contemporary political struggle. Others have radically different conceptions of what grammatical-historical interpretation means. What do we do with our modern situation?

So far, we have concentrated single-mindedly on developing a form of interpretation based on the Bible’s teaching about itself and about God. And such a focus is crucial. But eventually we must turn our attention to this modern situation. We must understand at least in a summary way what sort of disagreements there are over interpretation, and how we may sift through them. In particular, we may see how radically our biblically-based approach differs from the main modern approaches, even some approaches advocated by evangelicals.

The basic differences arise from spiritual warfare, and so we start by reflecting on the character of spiritual warfare, as set out in the Book of Revelation.