[K:NWTS 21/1 (May 2006) 11-39]

The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and

Preaching1
William D. Dennison, Ph. D.

Introduction: The Present Climate of Discussion

When I was a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia during the

mid 1970's, the historic Reformed faith was the archimedean point of the institution
as a heterogeneous faculty and student body advanced their own convictions and
concerns about that historic faith and the direction that she should adopt. In my
judgment, supporters of practical theology, systematic theology, and biblical
theology seemed to dominate the corridors of the school. Although defenders of each
rubric were loyal, articulate, and passionate concerning their own persuasions,
faculty and students from each perspective engaged others in civil as well as tense
deliberations. From these discussions emerged serious differences and challenges;
even so, I do not recall a spirit in which the orthodoxy of each perspective was
seriously questioned.

In the present Reformed climate, however, a spirit of peaceful coexistence seems to

have fallen upon rocky soil. Particularly, the field of Reformed Biblical Theology has
been the object of intense hostility. It is not clear what events have transpired to
create this change. Perhaps, the models in evangelism, church growth, and pastoral
counseling that gripped Reformed ecclesiology during the 1970's were foundational to
the present antagonism. Possibly, the issue is more theological than a particular
ecclesiastical model, e.g., the issue of creation, the debate concerning justification,
or the understanding of the law. Maybe the problem is quite simple; the Biblical
theologian is accused of failing to exegete and apply the Biblical text properly to the
everyday domestic, ecclesiastical, social, cultural, and political life of the people of
God. Pursuing another direction, could the present theological climate be an
atmosphere of personality variants in which arrogance, pride, power, and ego on
both sides of the issue has emerged in order to guard one's own theological and
ecclesiastical turf? Although it is probable that all these factors as well as others
have contributed to the present climate of suspicion and division, it seems that the
issue of applying the Biblical text has caused the most friction.

If my assessment is credible, it may be imprudent to place before the church a case

for Biblical theological or redemptive-historical hermeneutics and preaching.
Furthermore, it may seem irresponsible to support such an approach as the most
Biblical approach to the Scriptures and the pulpit. Although I hope for a renewed
peaceful coexistence with the opponents to Biblical Theology, I do not believe that I
should resist my own Biblical convictions. After all, from my viewpoint, the
definition and understanding of Biblical Theology lies within the parameters of the
analogy of Scripture found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, i.e., "the
infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself (I:ix)."2 In my
judgment, the Confession's statement on the "infallible rule" of Biblical hermeneutics
is an essential component of Biblical Theology. For this reason, Biblical Theology has
a favorable and positive disposition in the heart of the Reformed confessional
tradition.

Terminology: Biblical Theology and Redemptive-Historical

In any theological controversy, the language associated with the dispute seldom
maintains a universal understanding. Often both the proponents and the critics seem
to speak and write without effectively comprehending what each side is saying.
Although this condition seems to describe the present situation, I believe the
terminology of Biblical Theology and redemptive-history remains adequate if we
define carefully these concepts within the tradition of Biblical and Reformed
orthodoxy.

From my perspective, Biblical Theology and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic

are inseparable and complementary. As the terms initially appeared in the Reformed
world, Biblical Theology referred to a discipline being defined within the theological
corpus, whereas the redemptive-historical hermeneutic referred more directly to the
exegetical enterprise. Although Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), the father of Reformed
Biblical Theology preferred the phrase "History of Special Revelation,"3 he wrote,
"Biblical Theol-ogy is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process
of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible."4 Or, as he stated in his
inaugural address at Princeton Theological Seminary (1894), "Biblical Theology,
rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of
supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity." 5 At least two
points need to be stressed from Vos's definition: (1) the place of Biblical Theology in
the theological corpus and (2) the record in the Bible of the progressive self-
revelation of God.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the four departments of Exegetical, Historical,
Systematic, and Practical theology were the typical divisions of the theological
encyclopedia.6 Although Biblical Theology was not one of the four branches, Vos
understood the discipline as the crown and final product of the various components
of Exegetical Theology.7 Even Vos's illustrious colleague at Princeton, the didactic
and polemic theologian Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921), spoke of Biblical Theology
as the "ripest fruit" of exegetics, as the discipline that systemized and organized the
work of exegetics. Warfield also expressed his desire to see that every Biblical
commentary would include Biblical Theology as the "capstone" of its particular
work.8 Although Warfield sifted Biblical Theology through his own "systematic" and
"scientific" grid, he realized that the final work of exegetics (Biblical Theology) was
to organize God's recorded revelation in history.

If we exclude from Vos's first definition the reference to the discipline within the
theological corpus, his second definition is simply an elaboration of the first
definition, i.e., God records in the Bible the supernatural revelation of Himself as it
unfolds, grows, and matures historically in various forms (language, theophany,
prophecy, etc.) as one holistic document. Likewise, Warfield maintained that Biblical
Theology opened "a new era in theological investigation by making known to us the
revelation of God genetically—that is, by laying it before us in the stages of its
growth and its several stadia of development."9 In agreement with Vos, Warfield
apprehended that the Scripture recorded a revelation from God that held together as
a whole; there was an interdependence and continuity that existed within the
revelatory fabric of the Bible from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation.

Although the theological landscape of the nineteenth century seemed to grasp afresh
the various stages and developments of God's progressive revelation by virtue of
Biblical Theology, Vos and Warfield simply captured and articulated what the
Scripture already taught in the opening verses of Hebrews: "At many times and in
various ways, God, in the past, spoke to our forefathers through the prophets, but in
these last days he has spoken to us in His Son (1:1-2a)."10 Or, as the Westminster
Confession states: "Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and divers
manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church" (I.1). The
author of Hebrews and the Confession encapsulates the notion of Biblical Theology
that Vos and Warfield articulated. Even so, it should be noted that Vos viewed the
discipline more from the perspective of an exegete, whereas Warfield viewed the
discipline more from the perspective of a scientific systematic theologian.
Nevertheless, both theologians provided the seminal understanding of Biblical
Theology within Reformed orthodoxy.

Although he stands firmly upon the previous work of Vos and Warfield, Richard B.
Gaffin, Jr. wishes to understand Biblical Theology as a method "indispensable for
sound biblical interpretation."11 Herein, Gaffin does not wish to focus his
understanding of Biblical Theology upon its definition (Vos) or the systematic
arrangement of the data (Warfield), although such concerns are not curtailed in his
work.12 Rather, one's engagement with the Biblical text is his primary concern. For
him, such an engagement always presupposes a hermeneutical method to interpret
and understand the Biblical text. In other words, the method of exegesis or
interpretation is bound to his view of Biblical Theology. Specifically, the context and
text of the Biblical narrative must always be "read in its redemptive or salvation-
historical context, understanding the text's subject matter within the horizon of the
unfolding history of salvation."13 In this manner, Biblical Theology becomes known as
"biblical-theological exegesis (=redemptive-historical interpretation)."14 Moreover,
for Gaffin it is important to note that the redemptive-historical interpretation can be
viewed in its "broadest" context as the covenant-historical interpretation.15 Unlike
those who wish to pit a covenant-historical hermeneutic (begins pre-fall) against a
redemptive-historical hermeneutic (limited to post-fall), Gaffin does not wish to
suggest that these two concepts are in contention with each other. Rather, Gaffin
sees the covenant-historical hermeneutic as an expanded version of the redemptive-
historical hermeneutic. Even so, on the basis of where the believer and the church
now stand in God's providential history, he correctly prefers the name, redemptive-
historical, to describe his method of interpretation as implicit to his understanding of
Biblical Theology.

Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and the Doctrine of Scripture

We have seen that in Reformed theology the name Biblical Theology refers to its
position in the theological encyclopedia, its definition, its organizing task, and its
method of interpretation. Concerning the method of interpretation, we have also
seen that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic may best describe the exegetical
activity of Biblical Theology—a method of interpreting and applying the Biblical text.
At this point, it is crucial to understand that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic
is connected organically with the historic Reformed view of Scripture. Reformed
orthodoxy has held to a high view of Scripture as the authoritative and infallible
Word of God. In my judgment, such a doctrine of Scripture cannot be compromised.
In fact, I believe it is the constant duty of the Reformed exegete to freely critique
his own work in order to remain more consistent to an integral relationship between
exegesis and the doctrine of Scripture. Interestingly, the Westminster Confession of
Faith provides the directive for this integral relationship. Since the Bible is
"infallible," it is logical that the exegete will want to remain within the infallible
self-conscious revelation of God in order to understand what God says. The
Westminster Confession's statement that "the infallible interpretation of Scripture is
Scripture itself" (I:9) is not a platitude of Reformed piety that is declared in order to
impress our constituency or those outside our constituency with our high view of
Scripture and method of interpretation. Rather, it must be a principle at work in the
Reformed exegete. Specifically, the exegete must engage constantly in critical self-
examination as to whether his method of Biblical interpretation is in compliance with
the authority of Scripture, or to put it another way, is in compliance with the
infallible Scripture interpreting the infallible Scripture. This critical analysis has been
at the heart of Reformed Biblical Theology and its redemptive-historical
hermeneutic; after all, in my judgment, the Westminster Confession's rule of
interpreting Scripture is redemptive-historical—it is Biblical theological.

Recently, Gaffin has provided further enlightenment for our understanding of Biblical
revelation. He has brought to the forefront an observation that was inconspicuous
and subtle in Vos. He has highlighted Vos's position that the Scriptures are God's
document concerning His activity (event) and His interpretation of that activity. The
sequence is crucial: act (event) precedes interpretation (word).16 The historical
activity of God occurs initially independent of the Scripture; then the Holy Spirit,
through a chosen human instrument, records the revelatory-activity in written form.
Simply, the Bible is the record of God's activity in the process of history. Or, to
approach the issue from the other angle, the Bible is God's own interpretation of his
own acts—God is interpreting his events when he performs them. More specifically,
the Bible is God's own running commentary on the progressive unfolding of his own
self-disclosure in history. In fact, the Bible is God's own infallible commentary on His
mighty acts (Magnalia Dei). In the Bible, therefore, the record of God's acts and
God's interpretation of those acts are united.17 One cannot separate act (event) from
interpretation (word). Hence, the Bible declares and interprets God's acts in the
continuing life of the covenant people of God.

We have just pierced the inner core of Reformed Biblical Theology and the
redemptive-historical hermeneutic; in the Scriptures we have entered into the very
fabric of God's historical progressive revelation. Unlike the discipline of Systematic
Theology, such an understanding is not a scientific activity of arranging, structuring,
or organizing revelation. Rather, Biblical Theology and the redemptive-historical
hermeneutic attempts to understand and present the revelation of God's self-
disclosure in a manner that is truly consistent with the progressive revelation of God
in a particular text as well as in the context of the whole of Scripture. It seems to
me that within a consistent Reformed view of Scripture that Biblical Theology
becomes the highest branch of theology in the encyclopedia. Why would we want to
maintain that Systematic Theology is the highest branch of theology, since it is the
operation of a human theologian? The systematic theologian takes the data of
Scripture as a finished document and by using the canons of human logic arranges
the material of Biblical revelation into logical sequential topics. Likewise, why would
some maintain that Practical Theology is the highest branch of theology, since it
looks at Scripture from the perspective that the exegete must infer and deduce
ethical maxims for the sake of practical living in the believer's present situation?
Such a human scientific activity assumes a gap between God's Word and the world in
which the believer lives. Although both Systematic Theology and Practical Theology
have a positive position in the branches of theology, Biblical Theology and the
redemptive-historical hermeneutic are pushing us into the inner fabric of God's own
revelation. We are entering into the actual manner of God's self-unfolding revelation
of himself. This is not a scientific exercise; we are not attempting to construct or
build a theology. Rather, God himself as theologian is confronting us here.18 The
absolute integrity of God's self-revelation is the issue for the Reformed Biblical
theologian. The Bible is God's theology book to the church. Herein, I am resorting to
the literal and simple etymology of the term, theology (theos=God; logos=word or
discourse).19 To say that the Bible is God's theology book is equivalent to saying that
the Bible is God's Word of God. Theology does not get any better than this! How can
it? God is the author; he is the theologian. God has arranged his theology (Word of
God) as he performed it in history. Herein, one conforms to God's method, his
arrangement, his logic, and his relevance in distinct contrast to conforming to the
canons of human logic or the ethical maxims of relevance for a particular era. God's
theology discloses his providential plan; we are peering into the unfolding counsel of
God's will in time and space. The task of the exegete is to become, therefore,
existentially unified into the progressive activity of God's work as God records His
theology book.20 Such a task can only be accomplished if the exegete is convicted
and persuaded that the Holy Spirit is the final author of the holy Word of God.21
Herein, the spirit of the convicted and persuaded exegete is unified with the Holy
Spirit as the Spirit imparts the treasures and riches of God's progressive revelation
(e.g., I Cor. 2:6-16; Acts 2: 14-41).

This incredible bond between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the believing exegete
has another dimension. Historic Reformed theology has been emphatic that the Holy
Spirit is the person of the Godhead who applies the truth of Scripture to the
everyday walk of the believer and the church.22 As we maintain that the Holy Spirit
is the author of Scripture and that it is the same Spirit who applies the truth of God's
Word to his people, then there is a certain sense that the Bible is itself the
application of its own message. In a preliminary manner, permit me to highlight two
points here, although later in this essay I will want to enrich and deepen this
concept. First, the Bible records an act of God and the Bible supplies its own
application of that act. For example, God creates the world and Psalm nineteen
supplies an application to the work of God's creation. Or, God resurrects Christ from
the dead and the Apostle Paul provides an application of the resurrection of Christ in
Colossians chapter three. Second, the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture has the
power to melt, convict, and shape the hearts of readers by the very words He has
written so as to cause the human spirit to act and respond. Hence, to speak of the
Bible as application does not mean merely that the message of the Bible is relevant
to every age; rather, the very words of Scripture are effectual. Directly, the words of
the Holy Spirit in Scripture are life. In saying this, clarity and caution must be
exercised. As I maintain the sovereign and independent work of God and his Word in
the heart of the believer, I am not attempting to truncate the Biblical teaching that
the exegete provides an interpretation of the interpretation. In other words, the
exegete interprets the interpretation that God has already infallibly given to his own
activity. Obviously, I am thinking here of the preacher or the human interpreter of
Scripture. Often Philip's engagement with the Ethiopian eunuch concerning the
interpretation and understanding of Isaiah 53 is given as the example (Acts 8: 26-40).
Moreover, the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) is instructive on this point when it
states:
 For he that illuminates inwardly by giving men the Holy Spirit, the self-
same, by way of commandment, said unto His disciples, "Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). And so
Paul preached the Word outwardly to Lydia, a purple-seller among the
Philippians; but the Lord inwardly opened the woman's heart (Acts 16:14).
And the same Paul, upon elegant gradation fitly placed in the tenth
chapter to the Romans, at last infers, "So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17).23

As one can see, the Second Helvetic Confession made the distinction between the
"inward" and "outward" applicatory work of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the Holy Spirit
instructs the people of God inwardly, but God has also decided to instruct the people
of God concerning his will through the outward preaching of the Word of God. The
Second Helvetic Confession refers to the preaching of the Word as the "usual way of
men, delivered unto us from God, both by commandments and examples" (I:7). It is
apparent, therefore, that in the context of the human exegete or the preacher,
another dimension has been added to our original structure of act (God's activity)
precedes interpretation (the Bible). The structure now looks like this: act precedes
God's infallible interpretation (Bible), which in turn precedes human fallible
interpretation (preacher or exegete).

If Biblical Theology is the prime discipline in the theological encyclopedia, then the
redemptive-historical hermeneutic is its intimate companion. Simply, the
redemptive-historical hermeneutic is interpreting revelation in the manner in which
it was revealed. Specifically, God is creator, author, and interpreter of his revelation
in the process of redeeming his people. Hence, the redemptive-historical
hermeneutic is the most Biblical hermeneutic or method of preaching because it
enters into the exact same unfolding pattern in which God himself records his
infallible Word and interprets his works.

Redemptive-Historical Preaching and Application

When Biblical Theology and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic enters into the
realm of applying the Biblical text in our preaching, we must remain consistent to
the continuum revealed in Holy Scripture and affirmed in the Reformed Confessions:
event (God's act)? God's interpretation (Scripture)? our interpretation (our preaching,
e.g., Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39). In light of the work of the
Holy Spirit, it is imperative that the issue of application in our preaching not deviate
from the bounds of this continuum. Simply, we must remain consistent with the
coherent and progressive element of Biblical revelation as delivered by the Holy
Spirit in the text of Scripture as he applies the work of Christ and the message of the
text to the hearts of God's covenant people. From God's performance in history, to
the Holy Spirit recording his performance in written form as well as the Holy Spirit
applying the written Word of God's performance in the hearts of the church, the
continuum is bonded in God's covenant oath and faithfulness in Jesus Christ. The
work of the Father and the Spirit is centered upon the Son; the focus of Scripture is
also upon the work of Christ (Lk. 24:27, 44-47).

With the continuum in mind, we turn to the issue of application. Specifically, the
Scripture knows nothing of moral obedience outside our union with the saving work
of Christ in his historical life, death and resurrection as the ground of the imputation
of his righteousness to the sinner (justification; Rom. 4:25; 5:19), death to sin in the
sinner (definitive sanctification; Rom. 6:6-7), and the continuing sanctifying work of
Christ's Spirit in the believer (progressive sanctification; Rom. 6:12-13). In terms of
the operation of the triune God of the Bible, history, soteriology, and ethics are
inseparable companions; moral or ethical duty and obedience cannot be separated
from the historical saving activity of God. For this reason the preacher must not
drive a wedge between the Biblical text (as a document of antiquity) and the present
stance of his listeners (as the notion of application is frequently used as a distinct
tool to bridge the gap between ancient text and present life).24 Moreover, the
preacher must avoid the current popular language that maintains that the preacher
applies the text to the people while the people are stimulated and inspired to
understand that application is something that they do. Often in such a construction,
the Reformed preacher, in compliance with the Reformed doctrine of the Holy Spirit,
will employ sincerely the Spirit as the One who bridges the gap by applying the text
to the believer's will. Although the Reformed doctrine of the Holy Spirit may be
upheld, the Holy Spirit is invoked in a construction where the historical discontinuity
between the Biblical text and the present historical life of the listener is
presupposed. Such a conception fails to take into consideration a more
comprehensive redemptive-historical concentration on the work of the Holy Spirit.
Hence, within the Biblical and Confessional understanding of the continuum, the
interpretation and application proclaimed by the preacher is always to be grounded
in the redemptive-historical event performed by God (centered in Christ) as the Holy
Spirit interprets the event in his Word. Application in a sermon is never separated
from event and God's Word; the preacher is always drawing the congregation into the
world of the Biblical text for the Word of God and the saving activity of God in Christ
brings power and life! The issue is not to assume a gap or discontinuity between the
Biblical text and ourselves which must be bridged by some abstract principle; rather,
the issue addressing the pastor is to draw God's people into the saving activity of
God's work as a participant in the event recorded in the text, not as a spectator to
that event (cf. Ex. 13:8; Hab. 3:15-16; Gal. 2:20-21; the preacher is drawing God's
people into the saving work of God as recorded by the Holy Spirit who is also the
Spirit who sanctifies God's people).25 In my judgment, the Biblical model is clear:
"Good preaching does not apply the text to you, but good preaching applies you to
the text." To put it another way, "The preacher does not take the word and apply it
to you, but the preacher takes you and applies you to the word."26
The directive should be understandable. The sanctifying Spirit of God accompanies
the preaching of the Word as the preacher draws the congregation as participants
into the event and the interpretation of the event that the sanctifying Spirit has
recorded for the church of Christ. As the congregation sees herself as participant in
the event of the text and its interpretation, she sees herself as applying her
participation in union with the text (grounded, rooted, and sustained by God's
sanctifying Spirit) to the continuing eschatological drama of redemptive-history—to
every single situation in which the believer is engaged. In other words, the
eschatological drama of redemptive-history found in the Biblical text extends into
the continuing life of Christ's church until Christ comes again (we see ourselves in the
continuing tension of the "already" and "not yet"). In fact, we live in the same
redemptive-historical period as the apostles, i.e., between the death, resurrection,
and ascension of Christ and his second coming; we live in the eschatological drama of
the two ages—belonging and living in "the age to come" while still living in the
"present evil age." We are to see ourselves in the same redemptive-historical period
as they lived; there is no discontinuity in the sense of living in the same
eschatological tension of the "already" and "not yet" as well as the overlapping of the
two ages.27 As participants in that same period, the work of the Holy Spirit in the
present life of the believer is never separated from the power of God's saving work
as communicated in his Word.

For example, returning to Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, the preacher engages the
congregation as participant in the event of the text, i.e., like the eunuch, the church
is in need of those ordained by the Lord to unfold the meaning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, in this case, as revealed in the event of prophecy to Isaiah, which in turn
directs us to the event of the suffering Christ. As Philip engages the eunuch as
participant in the prophecy of Isaiah, likewise the present preacher engages the
congregation with this event recorded in Acts. In our particular redemptive-historical
context, however, the congregation will become a participant in three events in the
text (the actual incident of Philip and the eunuch, the prophecy of Isaiah, and the
fulfillment of that prophecy in the suffering servant, Jesus Christ). Herein is the
salvation of the eunuch; it is in the work of Christ; likewise, herein is the salvation of
any sinner! Hence, those who come to an understanding and belief in the gospel of
Christ are to be baptized as members of his body. As we live in the continuing
eschatological drama of redemptive-history, we know that the Holy Spirit, through
the preaching of the Word, will apply the saving work of Christ in the hearts of men.
Even in this text, we are observing that the total work of salvation is the complete
operation of the triune God. Indeed, the Father has decreed those who are being
saved in the efficacious work of Christ's death and resurrection as the Holy Spirit
effects God's decree in Christ's redemption to the hearts and daily walk of God's
children.

With this initial understanding of the continuum and its relationship to the issue of
application before us, I wish to continue in this area by addressing two popular
criticisms leveled at Reformed Biblical Theology and the redemptive-historical
hermeneutic: (1) the failure to use Biblical examples and (2) the failure to preach
imperatives in the Biblical text. Because of the limitation of space, my response to
both criticisms will be brief.

Beginning with the criticism of Biblical examples, I contend that most critics of
Biblical Theology use Biblical examples as an instrument of aspiration. In this case,
the Reformed pastor shapes the application of his message around an ethical or
moral ideal (principle) as revealed in the Biblical example: e.g., Abraham's act of
faith in offering Isaac, Moses' strength before Pharaoh, David's defiance of Goliath,
and Christ quoting Scripture to thwart off Satan in the wilderness. The task of the
pastor is to encourage his congregation to pursue or emulate the moral ideal as
embodied in the Biblical character (the example) as models or "ideal types." We are
to aspire to act and respond in our present situations as they did. In such a model
often the language seems confusing enough to suggest that the moral ideal exists as
an independent transcendent and eternal moral principle beyond us, and yet, it is
parallel to God's existence which he alone is able to embody and conform. For
example, just as Christ quoted Scripture to thwart Satan in His temptation, Christ
(God) provides the moral example (ideal) for us to thwart Satan by quoting the Word
of God in our temptations (Christ conforms to the transcendent principle). When
such a presentation is conceived and delivered to the people of God, I believe the
Reformed pastor feels uncomfortable with his presentation; he knows something is
not right with his model. He knows that there is no independent transcendent
principle outside of God and he knows that in light of man's fallen nature that it is
impossible to duplicate the actions of Christ in our temptations by Satan. Simply, the
pastor knows that the entire body of Christ fails to live up to the aspired model.

As the pastor is caught in this dilemma, he invokes his only recourse; even though it
is impossible, Jesus is there to help you with His Spirit. In this case, the pastor
believes he has preserved the ethical duty of the believer by baptizing it with the
power and assistance of the gospel. He believes that such a construction has solved
the dilemma. But there is a serious problem with his construction; this model of
example by aspiration is Platonic, and not Biblical.28 This popular and dominant use
of example, even within Reformed preaching, seriously flirts with works
righteousness. It seems to follow a twofold procedure: you must do as the example
has done, and as your shortcomings arise, God will come to your assistance. Sadly,
even Reformed preaching seems to be immersed in western ethical theory (especially
the dominant ethos of Plato); whether consciously or not, the pastor has laid Plato's
ethical model of aspiration over the content of Biblical revelation. Such a confusing
synthesis of Biblical revelation with the Platonic model, even as it is unconsciously
proclaimed, is a speculative and abstract metaphysical exercise which has no place
in God's letter to His church—the Scriptures.
The Biblical directive is different than the Platonic model; in my judgment, the
picture presented in Holy Scripture is one of assimilation, not aspiration. Herein, the
believer assimilates the life pattern of the Biblical example.29

Specifically, the believer is absorbed, or merged, into the life-pattern of the Biblical
example; in fact, this union of covenant bond is so unique that the believer is viewed
as a participant in the life-pattern of the example as if it were his own life, i.e.,
bound in "likeness" to one another (Rom. 6:1-14, esp. vs. 5; cf. Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7).30
This binding union can only exist by the sovereign and mysterious supernatural work
of God (it exists by grace); man cannot create this union by thinking, saying, or doing
it. God alone understands the depths of man's spirit in order to bind spirit to spirit,
life pattern to life pattern (I Cor. 2:10-16). Moreover, the concept of assimilation is
grounded and exposed in the historical revelation of God's activity (event); there is
no life pattern to assimilate without the actual work of God in history in which the
believer participates. Since pastors commonly use Christ, the central person of our
holy faith, as our example, let us return to Christ's temptation to illustrate my point
(Mt. 4:1-11; cf. Mk. 1: 12-13; Lk. 4:1-13).

As the preacher proclaims the message of Christ's temptation, he must grasp its
redemptive-historical significance. The event of Christ's temptation in the wilderness
is a reenactment of the event of Israel's temptation in their wilderness journey [note
the parallels: the event takes place in a wilderness; forty days and nights (Christ)
corresponds with forty years (Israel); Christ is tempted as "Son of God" corresponds
with Israel's temptation as the "son of God" (Ex. 4:22-23; Deut. 8:5); every quote
from Scripture recited by Christ to Satan is taken from the context of Israel's
wilderness journey (Deut. 8:3; 6:16,13)]. Where Israel failed as "son of God" in their
wilderness journey against Satan, Jesus Christ, the true Israelite, is victorious as the
final and perfect "Son of God" in His wilderness journey against Satan. The point of
Christ's temptation in the history of redemption is not to provide an example of one
who meets the moral ideal, and thus, we are to do and conquer as Christ did in our
temptations by Satan. After all, as we participate in the event, we are transposed
into the event of Israel's journey; as fallen creatures, we see ourselves in union with
Israel, i.e., sinners who cannot in our strength withstand the temptations of Satan.
For this reason, God sent His Son to confront the enemy that Israel as well as we
cannot conquer. God places His Son in the exact same conditions in history that Israel
faced. But this time, since Christ is the perfect and eschatological Son of God, He
defeats Satan.31 The message now becomes clear: only in union with the active
obedience of Christ is there victory over Satan. The congregation is encouraged (it is
imperative) to flee from relying upon their own strength against Satan, and to place
their faith alone in the victorious work of Jesus Christ, who alone conquers the Evil
One.
In light of the redemptive-historical understanding of Christ's temptation, he is
pictured as our example for conquering Satan. There is, however, only one way for us
to experience and follow his example. By grace, through faith we are brought into
union (participation) with Christ's efficacious obedience in this event as he moves
towards the final episode of victory at the cross. So powerful is Christ's victory that
the believer is drawn into the humiliation and exaltation of Christ's confrontation and
conquest (his life-pattern). The life of the believer is captured and transformed into
the example of Christ as he assimilates Christ's life-pattern of humiliation and
exaltation. As the Spirit of God makes the application of his own interpretation (Holy
Scripture) of the event to the heart of the believer, the believer now experiences the
life-pattern of Christ as his life-pattern; indeed, in the sole power of God's Spirit, the
believer is following Christ's example.32 Our victory, salvation, and obedience are
found only in our union with what Christ has accomplished for us in history.

In light of everything that Christ has accomplished, could the preacher still
encourage the congregation to use the Scriptures in our times of trial and temptation
with Satan? Has Christ's accomplished victory over Satan negated the necessity for us
to use and know God's Word as "the prince" of this world continues to entice the
church? Even in light of what Christ accomplished, the church understands that it
continues to exist in the eschatological tension of the "already" and "not yet" and
that "the prince" of the present evil age is still real. Since we have not yet
experienced the total glorification of our existence, we continue to battle the
effects of sin in our being (Rom. 7). Again, however, we must be clear on the
directive the believer must take here; we are to assimilate the life-pattern of Christ.
Indeed, remaining clearly self-conscious of what has already been noted about the
text, we follow the life-pattern—the example—of Christ. As Christ quoted the
powerful and living Word of God in his humiliation against Satan, likewise, in our
state of humiliation before Satan we are to confront him with the Word of God. We
adopt this pattern in our union with Christ. The believer now knows, however, that
only in faith-union with Christ's all-sufficient power, which is applied to the heart of
the believer through the Holy Spirit, is there any hope of following Christ's example.
And when the believer fails, there is the constant covenant bond of Christ's salvation
and faithfulness that He has already secured the victory for his children. Herein,
Christ's activity is not an ideal which we aspire to copy and reach, rather Christ's
activity is a life-pattern which is to be followed, knowing that He has already
accomplished everything for us (we are to live what we already are in Christ).33 Only
in Christ's obedience is there victory over Satan. Herein, there is no hint or confusing
language of a transcendent ethical dimension to which God complies and man seeks;
rather, the moral holiness and righteousness of God condescends into the creation in
God's Son (very God of very God) as his obedience is imputed to the sinner
(justification) as a gift of sovereign grace. Through the power of Christ's death and
resurrection and the application of that event to the justified sinner by the Holy
Spirit, the believer now lives (definitive sanctification) and is required to live by
faith (progressive sanctification) the life-pattern of His Savior as his example.

Hopefully it has now become apparent that Reformed Biblical theologians have no
problem following the directive of Scripture in Hebrews 11 and I Corinthians 10: 6-
13. Of course, the author of Hebrews presents the men and women of faith in
chapter eleven as examples to us. But what kind of examples are they? First, one
must not fail to presuppose the event of God coming into a fallen creation and
implementing His covenant of grace or promise. The faith described in the list of Old
Testament saints is nonsense without presupposing the event of God's covenant
because one of the main points of the examples are that they embraced the promises
of the covenant without receiving its final blessings. Second and more specifically,
they are examples of men and women who lived by faith—the faith described in
verse one: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not
seen." This understanding of faith is driven home by the fact that "these [Abel,
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah] all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed
they were strangers and pilgrims on earth" (vs. 13; cf. I Peter 2:11-12). They were
living under the assurance and conviction of an eschatological inheritance that they
hoped for and did not see. Third, if we comprehend the context of Hebrews eleven,
then we realize that the conditions for these men and women of faith in the Old
Testament is similar to the conditions for the believer living between the death,
resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the promises of his eschatological
inheritance in Christ (Hebrews 10:19-39; cf. Eph 1: 3, 2:6; I Peter 1: 3-12). Indeed,
the Old Testament saints are models and examples for the New Testament to follow.
We are to follow the same life-pattern (a life of faith) as children who live in union
with God's covenant oath as he promises our eschatological inheritance. The
examples of faith are not examples of aspiration (works), but assimilation (grace).
Our living and eschatological faith takes on the exact same pattern; we are called as
pilgrims and strangers on earth in which we await the final promises of a blessed
inheritance in Christ in the heavenly places.

In I Corinthians 10:6-13, Paul provides an example of warning to the church. In this

case, the warning is clear; if we aspire to assimilate the same life-pattern as Israel,
i.e., lusting after evil things, idolatry, eating and drinking, fornication, then we will
perish as they perished (cf. Heb. 3:1-4:11). Again, one needs to understand the way
Paul is using example; he is placing it in the context of event (I Cor.10:7 refers to the
incident of the golden calf in Ex. 32:6). In the event of their idolatry, they rejected
life in union with the redeeming event of God's exodus (Ex. 32:1, 4b, 8b, 23). As they
trade one life of assimilation for another, they will transform their allegiance of
assimilation (union with Satan and his kingdom) into a world of aspiration; they
aspire to be just like the Egyptians. Paul is very clear to the Corinthians; if they
direct their steps in the exact same life style as those Israelites, then they will come
under the same eschatological judgment of God.34 Likewise, in the same urgency
that the Spirit compels Paul, the present pastor must issue the same warning to his
congregation!

Another popular criticism of Reformed Biblical theological preaching is its alleged

failure to use the imperative mood of the verb in preaching. Many critics believe that
Biblical theologians give more attention to the indicative mood to the neglect of the
imperative.35 Specifically, Biblical theological preaching fails to present a "proper
balance" between the indicative and the imperative. Again, I am not convinced that
the critics of Biblical Theology comprehend the revelatory-structure in which the
Reformed Biblical theologian is operating. The Biblical theologian will not submit the
indicative-imperative structure of Biblical ethics to the "golden mean" of a pragmatic
rendition of Aristotelian ethics, i.e., that the extremes of the indicative as well as
the imperative must be opposed for the sake of the "mean" (balance) between
them.36 Such an edition of the Aristotelian model placed upon Biblical revelation
leads to a formulation which views the indicative as being independent and distinct
from the imperative as the imperative is independent and distinct from the
indicative. Hence, the Christian life is viewed as a life of being and acting in which
each independent and distinct mood of the verb is comprehended and lived in
balance. The idea that seems to be portrayed is that the imperative (specific acts of
obedience) must be added as a complement to our lives in order to establish the
balanced life. The Westminster Confession's position of faith and duty has the
perception of faith plus duty (WCF SC Q&A #3). One can see that in this construction,
application in preaching is a vehicle to stimulate and demand that the believer live
the balanced life. In my judgment, this pragmatic edition of the Aristotelian mean
becomes the archimedean point for faith and practice—the model for the Christian
life.

As we keep in mind the continuum in Biblical revelation, the indicative-imperative

construction is not to be modeled after Aristotle's balanced life in which we are to
avoid extremes. Rather, the issue in the Bible is to understand its organic unity; the
Christian life is the organic union of the indicative and the imperative. Our Savior is
very clear: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." According to Christ, it
is impossible to truly love Him, and yet be totally disobedient to Him. The Christian
life is one of faith and obedience. Indeed, the indicative and the imperative are two
distinct verb moods; the indicative mood "makes an assertion," or a "statement,"
whereas the imperative mood is used in making a "command, entreaty or
exhortation."37 In Biblical revelation, although they are distinct, they are not
understood as independent of each other; rather, they express an intimate union in
the life of the believer.38 The theological content conveyed in these verb moods is
crucial for understanding and meaning; in fact, it is interwoven in the continuum.

A Biblical understanding of the indicative denotes the believer's ethical existence in

faith-union with the powerful redemptive-activity of God (event). Herein, it is
common to view the indicative as describing the status of the believer's existence by
virtue of the accomplished redemptive work of Christ in history. At this point,
however, it is important not to view the indicative as merely descriptive, and
therefore, as an abstract grammatical statement of the believer's condition in Christ.
Rather, the indicative is descriptive of event (work of Christ) as the event itself
possesses power. The believer in the event now possesses the power of God displayed
as God maintains clearly the Creator-creature distinction. The power of the event as
well as its saving content are applied to the life of God's children, e.g., when Christ
died, I died; when Christ arose, I arose (cf. Rom. 6:11; II Tim. 2:11). Indeed, at the
heart of the theological content of the indicative is an application component, e.g.,
the death and resurrection of Christ has been applied to the existence, identity, and
status of the believer (he has died to sin and now lives in the newness of life; Rom.
6:8). Interestingly the indicative incorporates the foundation of Biblical application;
it not only includes the accomplishment of redemption but it also includes the
application of redemption as centered in the efficacious affect of the event.
Specifically, God's act is performed; the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture records the act.
Through the power of the Spirit and the power of the living and active Word of God,
the efficacious work of God in the event is applied to the believer's life. If we start
with man, the process is reversed. The preacher draws the believer into the divine
power of the Biblical text that interprets the powerful saving event of God.
Simultaneously the power of the Spirit applies the event efficaciously to the
existence and status of the believer as his own; such an active event defines the
identity of the believer that the Scripture describes by using the indicative mood.

Furthermore, the Spirit who interprets the event (text) is the same Spirit who drives
the event into the soul as it encapsulates one's whole being to embrace joyfully and
enthusiastically the imperative in response to God's saving work. In terms of the
indicative-imperative structure, we are noting that in the imperative the believer is
being commanded or exhorted to apply (imperative) what is already applied by grace
to his life (indicative). Simply put, since your sin has already been totally crucified to
the cross of Christ (indicative), you are commanded not to allow sin to reign in your
mortal body (imperative; Rom. 6:8, 12). In the integrated and holistic moral
Christian life, there is no imperative application without the indicative application,
e.g., we cannot deny the power of sin in our life (imperative) without the power of
the cross (event) in our life (indicative).39 Theologically speaking, the two moods of
the verbs are inseparable and interwoven.40 Doctrine is life! The same Spirit
mediates God's Word and the event into the progressive sanctification of the believer
(Eph. 2:10). For this reason, one should never assume that the imperative appears
independently in the Biblical text outside a redemptive-historical context (the
indicative). Within this revelatory framework, the Reformed Biblical theologian
preaches emphatically and passionately the imperatives of the Biblical text. In doing
so, he is in compliance with the Biblical model, i.e., the imperative is grounded in
the indicative, or the imperative is implied in the indicative. Or, we may say it
another way, the imperative flows out of the indicative. Vos put it this way: the
indicative effects or is the source of the imperative.41 Whatever states the truth
best, one point is clear; the entire work of salvation is the work of the triune God of
the Bible—from beginning to end; it is not the work of man.42

Epilogue

In this essay I have attempted to make a brief and preliminary defense that Biblical
Theology and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is the most Biblical way to
interpret and preach the whole counsel of God.43 It has been my goal to make this
defense in a manner that unfolds and submits the discussion to the very fabric of
Biblical revelation as it is disclosed in the manner God presented himself. As we keep
in mind the various perspectives on hermeneutics upon the Reformed ecclesiastical
landscape, it is not my intent for the redemptive-historical approach to become
elitist or intolerant, as some of our critics have alleged we have. Indeed, we will not
shy away from our enthusiasm, passion, and conviction for such an understanding of
Biblical revelation, but we also understand the necessity of patience and open
discussion. It is my personal conviction that the Reformed mind wants seriously to
have his entire Christian life under the authority and direction of God's infallible
Word. I believe that such a conviction comes from the Spirit of God. As the Biblical
theologian holds his convictions concerning his understanding of Biblical revelation,
he also realizes that there is a need in the church to sharpen, clarify, and critique
the hermeneutical paradigms that occupy the present discussion. Through such a
discussion, he hopes that the various proponents of Reformed hermeneutics will do
everything within their finite ability to conform the entire theological encyclopedia
to the manner in which God does theology in His holy Word to the church.

______________________

1 This article should be viewed as the third part in a trilogy by the present author. If one wishes to

read the previous articles in sequence, I would suggest that one begin with "Reason, History, and
Revelation: Biblical Theology and the Enlightenment," Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological
Seminary 18/1 (May, 2003): 3-25; and then, one should read, "Biblical Theology and the Issue of
Application," in Reformed Spirituality: Communing with Our Glorious God, eds. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr.
and J. Andrew Wortman (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2003) 119-151.

2 Others have made this same observation about the relationship between the analogy of Scripture in

the Westminster Confession and the discipline of Biblical Theology (see John Murray, "Systematic
Theology," in The New Testament Student and Theology, ed. John H. Skilton [n.p.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1976) III: 26, n. 20, and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,"
in The New Testament Student and Theology , ed. John H. Skilton [n.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1976] III: 45). Gaffin's comment is worth noting: "It does not appear to be going too far to say that in
`biblical theology,' that is, effective recognition of the redemptive-historical character of biblical
revelation, the principle of context, of the analogy of Scripture, the principle that Scripture
interprets Scripture, so central in the Reformation tradition of biblical interpretation, finds its most
pointedly biblical realization and application" (cf. also his "The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics," in
Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Theological Congress, June 20-24,
1994 [Kampen: Kok, 1994] 26, n. 19).

3 Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1954) 23. As he

reviewed the objections and criticisms to Biblical Theology, Vos expressed that he preferred "History
of Special Revelation." John Murray also seemed to prefer the phrase, "History of Special Revelation"
(see "Systematic Theology," 18-19).

4 Ibid., 13.

5 "The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline [1894]," in Redemptive

History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980) 15. Vos used this same definition in his article, "The
Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology," The Union Seminary Magazine (February-March, 1902): 197; this
article has been republished under the same title in Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological
Preaching 14/1 (May, 1999): 3-8, esp. p. 6.

6 (See Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. J. Hendrik De Vries [Grand Rapids: Baker,

1980] 630 and Vos, Biblical Theology, 12-13). One may wish to note that A. A. Hodge only mentioned
three departments: Exegetical, Dogmatic or Systematic, and Practical—excluding the Historical
(Outlines of Theology, ed. William H. Goold [London: T. Nelson and Sons, Paternoster Row, 1872] 51).
Although he wished to add a fifth department of Apologetic Theology to the encyclopedia, Benjamin
B. Warfield, in his inaugural address at Princeton Theological Seminary (May 8, 1888), articulated and
defended an exalted position for Systematic Theology. In doing so, he discussed the relationship
between Systematic Theology and the other disciplines, including a positive assessment of Biblical
Theology in the entire theological enterprise (Inauguration of the Rev. Benjamin B. Warfield as
Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, 1888] 22-28;
cf. also his "The Idea of Systematic Theology (1896)" in The Princeton Theology 1812-1921: Scripture,
Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. Mark A. Noll
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983] 241-261, esp. 250-253).

7 Vos understood that Exegetical Theology comprises four disciplines. If we begin with man's

investigating procedure, then Biblical Theology is the last step: (1) study of the content of Scripture,
(2) typical "introductory" issues of the Biblical text, (3) questions surrounding "Canonics," and (4) the
study of the actual self-disclosure of God—Biblical Theology. On the other hand, Vos strongly
emphasized that the procedure and sequence is reversed from the viewpoint of God's activity (see
ibid., 13). Specifically, Vos remarked, ". . . Biblical Theology is that part of Exegetical Theology which
deals with the revelation of God" ("The Idea of Biblical Theology," 6). For further insight to the
relationship of Biblical Theology and Exegetical Theology, see James T. Dennison, Jr's article, "Building
the Biblical-Theological Sermon. Part I: Perspective," Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological
Preaching 4/3 (December, 1989): 30-32.
8 Inauguration, 24-25 and "The Idea of Systematic Theology," 252. Furthermore, Warfield expressed

this elevated position even in respect to Systematic Theology; he held that Systematic Theology is
"founded on the final and complete results of exegesis as exhibited in Biblical Theology" as the later
"is the basis and source of Systematics." In other words, for Warfield, "Biblical Theology provides the
material for Systematics" (Inauguration, 26 and "The Idea of Systematic Theology," 252).

9 "Century's Progress in Biblical Knowledge [1900],"in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B.

Warfield, ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973) II: 12. The article originally
appeared in Homiletic Review (March, 1900) 195-202. Relevant to our immediate comments, Warfield
further elaborated on the distinction between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology when he
wrote: "If men have hitherto been content to contemplate the counsel of the Most High only in its
final state—laid out before them, as it were, in a map [Systematic Theology]—hereafter it seems that
they are to consider it by preference in its stages, in its vital processes of growth and maturing
[Biblical Theology]" ("Century's Progress,"12).

10 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. captures the impact of this Biblical text for hermeneutics when he writes,

"The clearest, most explicit biblical warrant for this fundamental theological construct [redemptive-
historical or Biblical theological hermeneutic] is provided by the opening words of Hebrews 1:1-2a: . .
. This umbrella statement, intended to provide an overall perspective on the teaching of the entire
document, is fairly applied, by extension, to the Bible as a whole. Note how it captures three
interrelated factors: a) revelation as a historical process; b) the diversity involved in that process
(including, we might observe, multiple modes and literary genres—as well as, too, whatever
legitimate methodologies have emerged, particularly in the modern era, for dealing with them); and
c) the incarnate Christ as the integrating omega-point (cf. 2:2-4; 3:1-6, esp. 5-6), the nothing-less-
than-last days, eschatological endpoint of the process" ("Redemption and Resurrection: An Exercise in
Biblical-Systematic Theology," in A Confessing Theology For Postmodern Times, ed. Michael S. Horton
[Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000] 230).

11 Ibid., 229.

12 See Ibid., 230, 245, n.1.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 See Gaffin's, "The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics," 25-26.

16 Cf. Vos, Biblical Theology, 13; Vos, "The Idea of Biblical Theology," 7; Gaffin, "The Vitality of

Reformed Dogmatics," 26. James T. Dennison, Jr. captures Vos's position: "He [Vos] emphatically
declares the revelatory character of the mighty acts of God in history. The act is identified with
revelation in history. Moreover act is further explicated by word. Hence the mighty acts of God are
not abstract moments—they are followed by words of explanation and interpretation. And in the
organic continuum of redemptive history, act and word progressively unfold. Acts recapitulate one
another; words additionally exegete one another" ("What is Biblical Theology? Reflections on the
Inaugural Address of Geerhardus Vos," Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching 2/1 [May,
1987]: 38).

17 This integration is affirmed by Vos when he wrote: "The relation between Jesus and the Apostolate

is in general that between the fact to be interpreted and the subsequent interpretation of this fact.
This is none other than the principle under which all revelation proceeds. The N.T. Canon is
constructed on it" (Biblical Theology, 325).

18 I want to make three crucial points here. First, as Vos mapped out, I am not overlooking that

Exegetical Theology consists of four scientific disciplines in which Biblical Theology is the last
discipline (see footnote #7 above). We recall that Vos noted that from the perspective of man's
investigation of the Biblical text, Biblical Theology is the last discipline of Exegetical Theology.
Herein, Vos is thinking of the typical introductory issues such as textual, literary, and historical
criticisms as well as issues dealing with authorship and canonics. On the other hand, Vos was clear
that God was not subject to such a scientific procedure. From God's perspective, the order is
reversed; Biblical Theology is the first discipline of Exegetical Theology—the Bible is the record of His
own self-disclosure in history. Hence, one needs to note that I am attempting to push the discussion
into the realm of God's perspective, i.e., Biblical Theology as the first discipline of Exegetics. Second,
an analogy to the work of Cornelius Van Til in Apologetics becomes appropriate here. Van Til grounded
all ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological issues in the God of the Bible, and therefore,
declared that the self-attesting Christ of Scripture is the starting point of Apologetics. In a similar
manner, following Vos, I am attempting to ground all introductory textual issues in the God of the
Bible, and therefore, declaring that the author of the Bible—God Himself—must be our starting point
as we engage the Biblical text. Just as we begin with God Himself in Apologetics, we begin with God
Himself in Exegetics. Third, in my judgment, future discussion of Reformed theological prolegomena
must take the directive that I am suggesting here. Prolegomena must be pressed back into a pre-
scientific understanding of the revelation of God Himself. For this reason, Michael S. Horton's recent
project—"an attempt to integrate biblical theology and systematic theology on the basis of scripture's
own intrasystematic categories of covenant and eschatology"—provides little advancement in
theological prolegomena (Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama [Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2002] 1).

19 Cf. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T.

Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992) I: 1.

20 As Vos stated: "The circle of revelation is not a school, but a `covenant'" (Biblical Theology, 17). Vos

went on to write: "To add `from within Scripture' is essential, for we do not dare to impose upon the
divine process and its product a scheme from any outside source. If redemption and revelation form
an organism, then, like every other organism, it should be permitted to reveal to us its own
articulation, either by way of our observing it, or by our receiving from it the formula of its make-up,
where at certain high-points it reaches a consciousness of its inner growth" (ibid., 321).

21 See Westminster Confession of Faith, I:5.

22 See Westminster Confession of Faith, VIII: 8; X: 1-4; XI: 4; Larger Catechism, questions 58 and 59

and Shorter Catechism, questions 29 and 30; Belgic Confession, IX; XXIV; Heidelberg Catechism,
question 53.

23 Reformed Confessions Harmonized, eds. Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1999) 12; Second Helvetic Confession, I:6.

24 John R. W. Stott, The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century: Between Two Worlds (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 138. This qualitative distinction between the Biblical world and
the modern world is also presupposed in Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development

and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001) 27-32, Jay Adams, Truth
Applied: Application in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Minister's Resources Library, 1990) 27, 47-55, Sidney
Greidanus's, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical
Literature (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988) 11, and Bryan Chapell's, Christ-Centered
Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994) 77-78. For an analysis
of Greidanus's book, one should consult Charles G. Dennison's review entitled, "Preaching and
Application: A Review," Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching 4/3 (December, 1989): 44-
52. Likewise for a review of Chapell's book, one should consult Gary Findley's "Review," Kerux: A
Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching 11/1 (May, 1996): 37-41.

25 See Charles G. Dennison's "Thoughts on the Covenant," in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays

Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. Charles G. Dennison and
Richard C. Gamble (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church, 1986) 7-21; cf. also his "Some Thoughts On Preaching," Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-
Theological Preaching 11/3 (December, 1996): 3-9, and his lecture delivered at Covenant College on
March 2,1998 entitled, "The Bible and Rhetoric." Jay Adams never comprehends this point in Reformed
Biblical theological preaching as he delegates its preaching to the realm of "spectator" (Truth Applied,
19-24). For this reason, his criticism seems to be experiential and reactionary rather than a scholarly
examination of the transcendental foundations of the Biblical theological corpus on preaching.

26 Both of these quotes come from a sermon delivered by Rev. Charles G. Dennison at Grace Orthodox

Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA on Habakkuk 3:18-19/Galatians 2:20 on November 19, 1995.

27 Cf. Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972) 1-61; Herman

Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Raids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1975) 44-100; Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's
Soteriology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987) 33-74; and William D. Dennison, Paul's
Two-Age Construction and Apologetics (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985) 27-53. As Vos put
it: "Still we know full well that we ourselves live just as much in the N.T. as did Peter and Paul and
John" (Biblical Theology, 326).

28 In the Phaedo, Plato argues that virtue is attained only in the Form world; life in this world is the

rational quest for untainted virtue—a transcendent and eternal principle. It should be the task of
humanity to aspire to the truth of the ideal although most of us will never attain it because of the
vices of the body. Only the philosopher lives within the rational framework to attain the Form world
after death (e.g., Socrates). In his Republic, Plato's famous allegory of the cave also illustrates this
point. Alasdair MacIntyre does not fail to note this basic structure in Plato's view of virtue. In
contrasting the sophist and Platonic view of virtue, MacIntyre writes: "If for Callicles [the sophist who
appears in Plato's dialogue, Gorgias] the satisfaction of desire is to be found in domination over a
polis, in the life of a tyrant, for Plato rational desire could be genuinely satisfied in no polis that
actually existed in the physical world, but only in an ideal state with an ideal constitution [Form
world]. Thus the good to which rational desire aspires and the actual life of the city-state have to be
sharply distinguished. What is politically attainable is unsatisfying; what is satisfying is attainable only

by philosophy and not by politics" (After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd edition [Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984] 140-141; cf also his, A Short History of Ethics: A History of
Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century [New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1966] 26-56).

29 In discussing the various components of sanctification, John Murray's work is dominated by the

term, "pattern." A careful examination of Murray's corpus leaves the reader with the distinct
impression that Murray's terminology was deliberate; the moral and sanctifying life of the believer is
not an aspiration to be achieved in one's own strength, but a life pattern conformed to the image of
Christ (see his, Collected Writings of John Murray [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977] II:
277-317). In fact, Murray guards his readers against the concept of aspiration when he wrote: "There
is a sense in which to aspire after the likeness of God is the epitome of iniquity" (ibid., 306). I believe
that a thorough and careful reading of Murray's discussion on the components of sanctification will
disclose a clear compatibility with the direction that I am taking. Moreover, it would be difficult to
conceive of his discussion without the influence of his teacher, Geerhardus Vos.

30 My use of the term, "assimilation" is captured by Murray's use the Biblical term "likeness" and its

relationship to the term "pattern" (Rom. 6:5; see Ibid., 311). Commenting on Rom. 6:5, John Calvin
also captured the idea that I am attempting to convey when he wrote: "The comparison which he
[Paul] introduces removes all ambiguity, since our ingrafting signifies not only our conformity to the
example of Christ, but also the secret union (arcanam coniunctionem) by which we grow together
with Him, in such a way that He revives us by His Spirit, and transfers His power to us" (Calvin's
Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul The Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, ed. David
W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. Ross MacKenzie [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1961] 123-124).

31 Interestingly, in this case, God places Christ as the participant in Israel's wilderness; in fact, Christ

assumes their same life-pattern. By grace, and in Christ, God has his Son reenact an event that came
under failure and divine judgment in order to rectify the event for blessing and salvation. Herein,
Christ's reenactment and participation in the former event turns the event upside down. Christ's
participation and salvific life-pattern becomes the ground for the redemption of the remnant in that
former event as well as the members of the New Testament church who now participate in Christ's
salvific work in the temptation. As Christ's life on earth reenacts many former events, keep in mind
that He conquers those of divine judgment, and He fulfills those of divine blessing.
32 In this Biblical understanding of example and application, there is no room for any hint that the

believer can claim or can follow the actual steps which Christ took in His victory over Satan.
Furthermore, there is no room for a position that such a conception of union with Christ's example
dissolves the Creator-creature distinction (see Murray, Collected Shorter Writings, II: 306).

33 In light of our fallen nature, we cannot model the moral perfection, holiness, and righteousness of

Christ, but by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit we do assimilate the life-pattern of Christ. At
the heart of this life of assimilation is the cross and resurrection of Christ. As the church of Jesus
Christ, we are called to live as pilgrims in this world taking up our own cross—a life of suffering (it is
impossible to carry Christ's cross). As we assimilate the life of the cross, God exalts His beloved
servants. The Christian life is one of humiliation to exaltation, just as the life of our Savior is one of
humiliation to exaltation. This activity is a work of God's sovereign grace through the Holy Spirit in the
life of the believer. Within the dynamic of God's work, the believer now lives as an example of Christ's
work. Herein, application is not something additional to what the text says. By the work and
sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, the believer is being drawn into living the pattern of Christ—the
believer is being brought into solid union with the saving work of Christ as he takes on the pattern of
that saving work (I Peter 1: 2). For example, just as Christ served, we are to serve—we follow the
same pattern (Phil 2:1-11). Just as Christ loved selflessly, we are to love selflessly.

34 If we correctly understand the progressive revelation of the triune God of the Bible (keeping in

mind the continuum), I think it is fair to say that Paul provides a specific hermeneutical principle
here, i.e., one can view the entire Old Testament canon as example for the church of Jesus Christ. If
one wishes to see Paul's hermeneutic principle applied among Biblical theologians, I suggest the
sermon series delivered by the Rev. Charles G. Dennison on I Samuel to Grace Orthodox Presbyterian
Church in Sewickley, PA from August 31, 1997-March, 1998.

35 E.g., Jay Adams writes: "Abhorrence of direct application leads biblical-theological preachers . . .

into common ground with many liberals who believe that the use of the indicative alone, to the
exclusion of the imperative, is adequate. At best, such preaching is applied (if at all) by implication,
and yet, at worst, only by inference. Application becomes the task of the listener rather than the
preacher" (Truth Applied, 21). In criticism of a specific weakness in the sermons of Geerhardus Vos,
John Carrick writes: "The indicative mood dominates throughout, and he [Vos] scarcely ever utilizes
the probing, searching interrogative or the commanding, hortatory imperative. Thus Vos' sermons are
characterized by the indicative, but at the expense of the imperative; they are characterized by the
descriptive, but at the expense of the prescriptive; they are characterized by the doxological, but at
the expense of the hortatory. There is in his sermons a very striking lack of application" ("Redemptive-
Historical Preaching: An Assessment," Katekômen [Summer, 2001]: 12). At this point, I wish to bring
one further insight before the reader. This present article was written in 2002 as a request from an
individual who was sponsoring a book project that has never materialized. Since 2002, the popular
attack on Biblical theological preaching with regard to the lack of the imperative has become directed
increasingly towards the Dennison brothers (see John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching: A
Theology of Sacred Rhetoric [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002] 108-145; idem.
"Redemptive-Historical Preaching: A Critique," in Reformed Spirituality: Communing with Our Glorious
God, eds. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and J. Andrew Wortman (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2003)
153-174; Stefan T. Lindblad, "Redemptive History and the Preached Word: Part 1: Introduction," The
Banner of Truth [May, 2005]: 22-25; and Stefan T. Lindblad, "Redemptive History and the Preached
Word: Part 2: Interpretation," The Banner of Truth [July, 2005]: 17-23. What is disappointing and
embarrassing for those making this popular charge is that none of them seem to be aware of the fact
that a positive discussion about the relationship between the indicative and the imperative appeared
back in 1979 by William D. Dennison (see his "Indicative and Imperative: The Basic Structure of Pauline
Ethics," Calvin Theological Journal [April, 1979]: 55-78).

36 See Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics" in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York:

Random House, 1941) II: 1-9, 952-964. We must be cautious and fair here; I have chosen my wording
deliberately (rendition and edition) to be fair both to Aristotle and the position that I am analyzing.
For Aristotle, the "golden mean" is a virtue that exists between two extreme vices; the virtuous life is
the life of moderation between excess. Herein one lives the balanced life. Many in the western world
have adopted, applied, and reshaped Aristotle's construction to fit their own particular interests in
moral theory. This applies to our own situation; to emphasize the indicative at the expense of the
imperative is excess and not balance (vice), and likewise to emphasize the imperative at the expense
of the indicative is excess and not balance (vice). The virtuous Christian life is the life of balance; like
the equal weight on a seesaw, the Christian life holds the indicative and the imperative in balance as
the golden mean. The actions of the balanced life move the person towards his end, i.e., towards the
goal of happiness (in the Christian construct, happiness is found in God). Actions are teleological in
Aristotle's construction (cf. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 146-163; idem., History of Ethics, 57-83; and
William K. Frankena, Ethics [Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1963] 70-74).

37 J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1923)

20, 180, and J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: At the University
Press, 1970) 11-12.

38 See William D. Dennison, "Indicative and Imperative: The Basic Structure of Pauline Ethics," 55-78,

and Ridderbos's, Paul, 253-257.

39 It is within this framework that we must understand such a position that states, "The Bible itself is

application." The Bible is not application in itself because one can apply an eternal Biblical principle
that appears in Scripture to one's contemporary situation. Rather, "the Bible itself is application"
because the event recorded in the living Word is applied to us in order that we may live and persevere
in its truth.

40 Murray presented the idea—"the interweaving of the indicative and the imperative" (Collected

Writings, II: 280-281).

41 "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," in Redemptive History and

Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980) 237.

42 The entire soteriological enterprise comes to the people of God as gift; moreover, the entire

soteriological enterprise is the sovereign work of the transformation of the sinner. Just as God is the
alpha and the omega, the first and last in terms of his self-identity; likewise our existence of salvation
begins in God and it is consummated in God. It is truly an eschatological existence; this personal
dimension of our eschatological existence corresponding with God's eschatological identity must not
be trivialized. Herein, history, eschatology, soteriology and ethics are interwoven. For this reason, the
Biblical theologian refuses to understand obedience and sanctification outside such a Biblical
paradigm. Indeed, in line with Calvin's presentation of the third use of the law, the Reformed Biblical
theologian will definitely continue to maintain and declare the law as a positive rule in the present
life of the believer in order to understand God's will and confirm one's existence in the law. Calvin
outlines the problem clearly which must be addressed and confronted in every believer: "however,
eagerly they [believer] may in accordance with the Spirit strive toward God's righteousness, the
listless flesh always so burdens them that they do not proceed with due readiness. The law is to the
flesh like a whip to an idle and balky ass, to arouse it to work" (Calvin: Institutes of the Christian
Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960]
II:7:xii, 361). Indeed, even in this continuing conflict or battle which exists for the believer as he is a
pilgrim on earth, Calvin holds that such an understanding of the law is not devoid of the present reign
and work of the Holy Spirit as well as the intercessory work of Jesus Christ in the believer. The Spirit
as well as Christ's work is fundamental and foundational to the third use of the law. It is this point that
the Reformed Biblical theologian will not relinquish; furthermore, it is this point that he attempts to
enrich by grounding the third use of the law more deeply in the redemptive-historical work of Christ
and His Spirit. In other words, you will only understand the nature of God's will and the confirmation
of his law if you understand the death and resurrection of Christ (event) through his Spirit. The full
exposition and exposure of the nature of God's will and the truth of His law is at the cross! We must
not forget that this is where Sinai is pointing; herein we also invoke the position of Calvin who
habitually asserted "that the law has validity only as it is related to Christ" (ibid., 348, n.1). Calvin's
own words are so potent here: "In the law and in Christ signify as much as by the law and by Christ,
according to the Hebrew phrase" (Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Henry Beveridge,
trans. Christopher Fetherstone [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1957] I: 543).

43 Cf. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "The Whole Counsel of God and the Bible," in The Book of Books: Essays

on the Scriptures in Honor of Johannes G. Vos, ed. John H. White (n.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1978) 19-28.

head>