Category: Preaching

Albertus Pieters, C.I. Scofield and “Homiletical Certainty”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Recently, I read a fascinating review of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible by Albertus Pieters, written in 1938. The book is small, since it was actually a lecture delivered to the Ministerial Association of the Christian Reformed Church at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.

One of the points which most struck me, was Pieters’ objection to “the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout” Scofield’s work. I see the same tendency among conservative pastors and teachers. I call the problem “homiletical certainty”.

In matters where a variance of opinion exists among Bible-believing evangelical Christians, I think pastors ought to be somewhat tentative in affirming their own position. Instead, the mere existence of differing interpretations is rarely even acknowledged, let alone mentioned. There is a sense that ministers have a duty to be dogmatic on every point they address behind the pulpit. I’m not so sure that this dogmatism really serves the church in the end.

I am not postmodern or emergent by any stretch, mind you. But a certain amount of theological and homiletical uncertainty is healthy. What is wrong with saying, “this is my opinion for these reasons, but other good Christians disagree”? In fact, finding out why others think the way they do, helps us to truly understand the opposing view. And even when we disagree, we can appreciate differing perspectives. We shouldn’t fear the truth, and if our position really is true, it will withstand any test.

So with this in mind, let me provide some excerpts from Albertus Pieters’ speech about the Scofield Bible. This isn’t so much a rant on Scofield as it is a corrective for the homiletical practices of many preachers today.

Another thing that goes far to explain the widespread use and great influence of this work, is the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout. Here we come to something we can not praise, although we admit its effectiveness with superficial Bible students — as most people are. Dr. Scofield never by any chance intimates that he may be mistaken, or that any other view is possible but the one he lays down. In one place I did find him presenting three possible alternative explanations, without deciding which was right, but this is a rare exception. For the most part, no infallible Pope could speak with greater certainty and authority than he; and this is true no matter what the subject under discussion. Whether dealing with the great doctrines which are the common confession of all Christendom, or with obscure and doubtful points of eschatology, where the most learned and competent expositors confess themselves at a loss, everywhere it is the same “ipse dixit” style….

In line with this authoritative attitude, and necessitated by it, is the fact that Dr. Scofield never argues, never explains, never apologizes, and never assigns any reasons for asserting that this or that is true…. Had he given his reasons, the intelligent reader would have begun to judge whether these reasons were convincing: by withholding all reasons he gives the impression that, if he did give them, they would be found satisfactory….

Now there are certainly times, places, and circumstances where this is the correct procedure. In teaching small children one can speak thus. The man who proclaims the great Christian doctrines is entitled to speak positively and with authority. He has the Holy Scriptures and the consensus of the Christian church from the beginning with him and behind him as he preaches these truths…. Besides this, any one called to the office of a Christian pastor in a given denomination has both the right and the duty to affirm, in his own pulpit, the distinctive doctrines of his own denomination, without qualification or apology. That is what he is there for; what he has been called to do; what his people want him to do, and understand that he is doing. He speaks not as an individual, but as an official teacher, the mouth-piece of his denomination….

In the case of the Scofield Bible, however, these considerations do not apply. He is not dealing with children, nor is he speaking in any sense in an official and representative capacity. In his presentation of the great central doctrines, he has the whole church behind him, but in a large part of his teachings he represents a minority of a minority, teaching a millennialism which no Christian church has ever admitted to its creed, and of that millennialism a special form which many of the wisest millenarians repudiate. Yet in all of this, as also in his remarks on chronology, and general Bible knowledge, he maintains the same oracular “I know it all” attitude. As a method of inspiring confidence among ignorant people, the method has merits, its effectiveness can not be denied; but from a moral standpoint it deserves severe condemnation. Dr. Scofield had no right thus to assume superiority over his brethren, to whom the Holy Spirit was given as well as to him, and many of whom had qualifications of scholarship far beyond anything he could claim.

In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgement, but in the interests of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide. (pg. 7-11)

Read Pieter’s lecture online, and you can reference the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible online too, via Google Books.

Why Preachers Fall

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

The higher you rise, the harder you fall. There seems to be nothing more universally revolting than the fall of a big name preacher.  The scandals of Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard all made the national news headlines.  But not every scandal gets such nationwide attention. Sadly, such falls by “men of God” are all too common.

Yesterday, I found out about one such fall that sits far too close to home for my liking.  Rodney Stewart, an evangelist who was a frequent preacher at the Bible College I attended, was recently caught in an online sex sting.  I own several cassette tapes of this man’s preaching, which always struck me as intense and radically serious. He was a great preacher who stuck close to the Biblical text in most of his messages.  Yet he was found out in his sin and now is sitting in prison awaiting his trial and sentencing.  The sad story is covered by a local news station in the Cleveland area here.

Why is it that men who are respected and hold a revered office (such as pastor, evangelist or preacher) would do such horrendous things?  Why would they be found soliciting sex online from a 15 year old? And why exactly are such failures so commonplace, as it seems?

I can’t speak for all sectors of Christianity, or for the Roman Catholic Church. I do know that sin is common to all men, that is sure.  But for conservative evangelical churches, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, there are several factors which I believe contribute to this problem.

1)  Too much emphasis on morals

This might sound crazy to some.  But an over-emphasis on morality actually encourages sin.  Moralism cannot save.  It cannot free someone of sinful urges within. Only the Gospel of grace can truly transform our hearts.

2)  An external focus

Many fundamentalist churches stress external conformity to rules and standards.  Christians need to look different, act different and dress differently than the world.  Christians need to read their Bibles, spend time evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and actively serve in their church.  All of this, people can trick themselves into thinking they can do.  And then keeping up the appearance of spirituality can in turn become a heavy burden.

3)  Little emphasis on grace

Grace, or God’s favor for undeserving sinners, is not emphasized.  God’s holiness and his high standards are.  Grace comes into play in salvation, but living the Christian life is all about effort, character, and duty. So when people struggle, there is no saving grace that can help them.  They must dust themselves off and try harder.  Often a do-it-yourself-mentality is the practical effect of an over-emphasis on externals and conformity.

4)  Failure to appreciate the Gospel

Similar to what was said above, the Gospel is seen as the 101 class for becoming a Christian.  The meat and the nitty-gritty of Christian living leaves the Gospel behind.  The Gospel is good news for the lost unbeliever, and its an assumed thing for believers.  This misunderstanding cuts off the Christian from his only sure hope.  The Gospel teaches that God accepts us not on the basis of how well we behave, but as a matter of pure grace and on account of Jesus’ death on the cross in our place.

5)  Legalism and burnout

All of this leads to a practical legalism.  Christians live as if God is not happy with them.  To please God and to truly grow in faith, one must add mountains of work to the faith that saves.  If we measure up to our own (or our group’s) expectations, if we perform, if we put out, only then are we satisfied with ourselves, and only then is God pleased with us.  When we fail in a myriad of ways, we have to struggle on alone.  This leads to burnout.  All work, no recognition of God’s love and approval, and no grace.  It’s hard struggling on in such a condition.

6)  No mutual accountability

The ethos of a legalistic church does not lend itself to mutual accountability.  Pastors rarely mention that they too struggle with sin.  If one confesses a sin, he is dealt with as a sinner. Grace isn’t proffered.  There is no benefit to opening up to others about your struggles.  You’ll be rejected, written off and then treated so differently.  For those struggling with sexual addiction, mutual accountability is balm to the soul.  Understanding that others share the same struggles and hearing others be open about their struggles to overcome the sin are key to victory.

7)  Lone Ranger Christianity

This final aspect is an American trait that has affected the church.  People think that the Christian life is something that is purely personal, and can be accomplished on their own.  The Bible stresses the role of the church and the need for brothers and sisters in the faith to encourage each other.  Often, in a high-stress environment, where a judgmental spirit is present, the communal aspects of church life are downplayed.  We get together to eat and socialize but never to discuss the impact of the Gospel on our personal lives.  This is only intensified in the life of a pastor or evangelist.  They are even more prone to the lone ranger phenomenon.  The pastor has to keep himself aloof from his congregation, it is thought.  The very thought of a pastor wanting help for struggling with his personal sins and thought life, is unheard of in many such legalistic environments.

I suppose other factors come into play, but these are certainly influential in many fundamentalist church environments.  But it isn’t only legalistic churches that can harbor such ideas about the Christian life. People can tend toward legalism in any context.

It’s so easy to cast stones at the fallen pastor.  I would hope that we could pray for him and his family, and be on guard lest the sin in our own hearts come to overcome us as well.  I certainly don’t excuse him for his crimes. however.  I just wish the system he was in would have been more grace-oriented.  But for the grace of God, I too could be consumed by my sin.

I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this, too.  Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.

Facing Temptation — Hebrews 12

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Here are some notes from a lesson I shared with some teens and young adults at my church this Sunday.

I. The Cycle of Temptation (Prov. 24:16)

  • Weak Flesh + Wicked World + Satan’s Work = Continual Temptation
  • We try to resist ~ we fail and fall into sin ~ we get up & resolve to do better ~ but we fail again….
  • This can lead us to lose heart, to give up and give ourselves to sin, or to be discouraged and even lose our faith

II. Resources for Temptation

  • Memorizing and learning God’s Word — Ps. 119:9,11
  • Watchfulness and Prayer — Matt. 26:41
  • Faith — 1 John 5:4, 1 Pet. 5:9
  • Godly Friends — Heb. 3:12-14
  • God does provide a “way of escape” — 1 Cor. 10:13
  • God uses temptation to work good in our lives — James 1:2-17

III. The Proper Perspective for Facing Temptation (Heb. 12:1-17)
1. The Christian Life is like a Long, Grueling Marathon — vs. 1

  • Not a quick sprint, the battle with sin is long and hard
  • Sin trips us up, and some non-sinful things can slow us down
  • We need endurance, to be in it for the long haul
  • It can be done, others have finished before us they testify to God’s grace, and they watch us finish our race

2. Our Focus needs to be on Christ, our Captain — vs. 2-3

  • Focusing on our failures and problems doesn’t solve anything, look away from ourselves to what Christ has done
  • Christ initiated our faith and will bring it to completion
  • When we fall, we must cling to the Gospel not self-effort
  • Jesus resisted sin “for the joy that was set before Him” we can also live now in light of Heaven’s joys (Phil. 3:13-14, 2 Pet. 3:11-14, Heb. 11:10, 13-16, 26)
  • Live in light of what is supremely true — that is faith

3. Battling sin is a struggle — like a boxing match — vs. 4

  • We haven’t even lost any blood in our match (others have)
  • There isn’t a magic “lose interest in sin” pill
  • Everyone struggles not just you (1 Cor. 10:13)
  • But with time, you can mortify sins and the battle gets easier (Rom. 8:13)
  • “Be killing sin or sin will be killing you.” — John Owen

4. Fighting sin is part of God’s discipline of his children — vs. 5-11

  • The trials of the Hebrew Christians primarily are in view when the author speaks of God’s “discipline”
  • But discipline is training or teaching as much as punishment
  • Vs. 4 “struggle against sin” , vs. 10 “share his holiness” , vs. 14 “strive for… holiness” as well as the weakness in vs. 12-13 argue for the battle against sin as being part of this “discipline”
  • So, this means the fight against sin (which isn’t easy), is part of what God ordains for us to make us holy
  • The struggle isn’t fun now, but it results in fruit (vs. 11)
  • And if you don’t experience this struggle, you just might not be a true son of God because every son experiences the struggles against sin
  • Be encouraged if you are struggling — that’s actually a good sign. Non-believers don’t struggle with sin
  • Take heart that God is behind our trials and temptations, and He wants them to mature us (James 1:2-4, 12-17)

5. Having this perspective on temptation, take heart! — vs. 12-13

  • We are tempted to give up and the race makes us weary — but take heart
  • Is. 35:3-4 is quoted: “Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who have an anxious heart, ‘Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come… He will come and save you.'”

6. Fighting sin is a team-sport — vs. 14-15

  • It’s like Tour-de-France, many members working toward the one goal of the victory — we look out for each other
  • Some can fall short, and miss out on God’s sustaining grace.
  • So we need to encourage each other (Heb. 3:12-14, 10:22-25)

7. The fight against sin does have real casualties — vs. 15-17

  • Holiness is required to see God — vs. 14 (and Matt. 5:8)
  • Some do fall away “bitter roots” (Deut. 29:18) & Esau — he sold his birthright for a bowl of stew (we are as foolish!)
  • Ultimately, the grace of God keeps us. Trust Him when you fail and sin. But take heart God’s not done with you!

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.

Quotes to Note 15b: Sailhamer on How Genesis Intends Joseph’s Life As a Type of the Coming Messiah

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m working my way through John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP). I’m finding multiple nuggets of special insight and blessing; the reward for reading through this 600 page book is well great indeed.

Often the interpretation of the Joseph narratives proves problematic among pastors and evangelical theologians today. Many don’t want to see Joseph’s life as paralleling Christ’s because the New Testament doesn’t expressly indicate that Joseph’s life is typical of the Messiah. But right in Genesis, however, Sailhamer finds a warrant for seeing Joseph’s life typified as an example of what the coming Messiah-King will be like.

…special attention [is] given to Judah in the whole of the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). As the story of Joseph’s journey to Egypt is getting underway (Gen 37), the author interrupts the narration to insert a lengthy story about Judah and his “righteous” (Gen 38:26) descendants (Gen 38). Also, when Joseph’s brothers devised a plot to kill him (Gen 37:18), it was Judah, rather than the firstborn, Reuben, who saved Joseph from sudden death. Such “reversals” occur numerous times within the remainder of the Joseph narrative. Judah is singled out from the other brothers as the one through whom the rescue of the family of Jacob was accomplished.

…Joseph’s brothers understood his [dreams] to mean they… would bow down to him…. As the narratives unfold, that is exactly what happens…. When they bow to him, Joseph “remembers his dreams” (Gen 42:9), and with him, the reader discovers that this is a work of divine intervention. The point of the narrative is to show that these and similar events are a fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

The narratives that focus attention on the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams are not permitted a final word. There are still important parts of the narrative that draw our attention not to Joseph, but to Judah. That focus reaches its fullest expression in Jacob’s poem (Gen 49). The last word of the Joseph narrative turns our attention toward the preeminence of the tribe of Judah: “your brothers will bow down to you”… (Gen 49:8b). These words connecting Judah to Joseph’s dreams are… important in giving us another look at the author’s understanding of Jacob’s first words to Judah. By means of these words (Gen 49:8b), a larger lesson is drawn from the Joseph narratives. What was once true only of Joseph, that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen 37:7-10), is now to find its fulfillment in the reign of one who holds the scepter from the house of Judah (Gen 49:10)…. In drawing a connection between the Joseph narratives and the promise to the house of Judah, Joseph and the events of his life foreshadow what will ultimately happen to the king from the house of Judah, the one spoken of in this poem. The king who was to come from the house of Judah is foreshadowed by the life of Joseph. He will save his people and the nations, just as Joseph saved the families of the sons of Jacob (Gen 50:20) and the nations (Gen 47:19). Joseph, rather than Reuben, will be the firstborn among his brothers, but Judah will reign through the kingship… (pg. 327-328)

A redemptive-historical approach to interpretation such as I advocate, would already feel liberty to find divinely-intended parallels between the life of Joseph and the life of Christ. Now with Sailhamer’s work, a stronger connection is forged, and we can see that the prophetic shapers of the final canonical form of the Tanak, themselves, saw parallels between Joseph’s career and the life and work of the coming Messiah-King.