This is the third blog article in a series of three that provides some backstory in preparation for a fourth article that will be published in the current theme on “Progressive Covenantanlism” at Christ Over All. That article will focus on an issue that I have addressed in various presentations and published essays, namely, that biblical types are not species of biblical interpretation but of revelation. Thus, to speak of “typological interpretation” or “figural interpretation” is to perpetuate confusion by incorrectly locating types within the realm of hermeneutics rather than where they properly belong, namely, as typological or prefiguring features of divinely given revelation. But for now, I offer some additional backstory to what led me to this position.
In the previous blog entry, I mentioned that I, along with several fellow seminarians, discovered Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos, and Richard Gaffin, who convinced us of the “redemptive-historical character of Scripture.” The three became trusted hermeneutical guides. Without realizing it, we students tended to shift domains from the “redemptive-historical” nature of God’s revealing his redemptive deeds and words to speak of “redemptive-historical hermeneutics.” Like our professors, we also tended to merge our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. Eventually, I came to realize what I was doing, but I needed some help and clarification. I received it from Geerhardus Vos.
Geerhardus Vos Provides Clarity
As indicated above, I began reading Geerhardus Vos when I was a seminary student. Vos was the one who convinced me that the biblical storyline entails the “History of Special Revelation.”[1] When his shorter writings became more accessible, I read his inaugural address at Princeton Theological Seminary, in which Vos reasoned, “Biblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.”[2] Take note of this critical distinction. He distinguishes God’s revelation—“the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity”—from our human exposition of God’s revelation, which he calls “exhibition.” God’s written Word concerning his revelatory deeds and words entails a progressively unfolding drama that Bible readers must track. Thus, our doing of Biblical Theology must strive to trace and to replicate accurately the historical progression of the biblical storyline of redemption from foreshadowing promise to substantial fulfillment in Messiah Jesus (cf. Colossians 2:17). So, in our doing Biblical Theology, “both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work,” contrasted with our doing Systematic Theology where “these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work” but “as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles.”[3]
In his article, “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul,” Richard Gaffin engages the significance of Vos’s The Pauline Eschatology. Given Vos’s insistence that biblical word revelation tracks with God’s redemptive acts, Gaffin points out an important implication: “believers today are in the same situation as was Paul.”[4] We have continuity with the Apostle Paul because we share the same redemptive-historical framework. If the apostle’s interest was explaining redemptive history’s climaxing in Christ Jesus, then all who seek to understand Paul’s ministry must embrace the same interest. Thus, both our interpretation of Scripture and our theology are “redemptive-historically conditioned” because the “essence of theology is interpretation of the history of redemption.”[5]
Given what Vos argues, our reading of the Bible should be “redemptive-historically conditioned.” So, we should always read the Bible sensitive to the historical progression of God’s redemption through the biblical covenants and always be prepared to be corrected by the Scriptures. So, we rightly affirm that Scripture entails the progress of God’s “redemptive-historical revelation” concerning the Messiah. Thus, if we interpret the Scriptures correctly, our reading will trace the “redemptive-historical” contours of the storyline like cartographers sketch maps. Does this, however, justify speaking of “redemptive-historical hermeneutics“? That is a question with which I was compelled to wrestle. I came to realize that danger lurks when using such a designation because we do not distinguish the pattern of God’s revelation from our interpretation of that pattern. We should carefully distinguish our flawed but improving hermeneutic for reading Scripture from the revelatory form and content of Scripture. We ought to avoid equating our “redemptive-historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture” with the “redemptive-historical nature of biblical revelation.”
The Problem of Theological Shorthand
As in other fields of study, how easily theological shorthand terminology comes to dominate the discipline. Truncated statements tend to miscommunicate. Though I grant the benefit of the doubt to those who use this terminology, I believe it is unwise, confusing, and misdirecting to abbreviate “the redemptive-historical character of Scripture” by claiming we practice “the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.” Perhaps I am overly cautious to avoid forms of “begging the question” and “confirmation bias” with variations such as (1) “salvation-historical interpretation,” (2) “Christocentric hermeneutic,” or (3) “Christotelic hermeneutic.” It may seem like I am drawing a pedantic, imaginary distinction without a difference between the redemptive-historical-Christological nature of God’s revelation and our humble human attempt to track and interpret the salvation-historical-Messianic characteristics of God’s Word. Admittedly, though the distinction may require reflective discernment, it is prudent to enforce the distinction between our proper role as readers, seeking to apprehend the Bible’s cohesiveness from God’s revelation itself, Holy Scripture, where meaning resides.
Enter “Progressive Covenantalism”
In my own reading of Scripture, I became convinced that God progressively reveals himself by his words and deeds in an unfolding drama across a continuum of dispensations or time periods marked by the many covenants God established with his chosen representatives. Stated differently, I came to acknowledge the redemptive-historical character of Scripture with the promise of Messiah foreshadowed and prophesied through historic covenants. Jesus instructs us that the Scriptures do not terminate on themselves but on him: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). Conversations with friends and discussions in books I read compelled me to grapple with how “redemptive-historical” properly describes how Scripture presents God’s unfolding drama of redemption within history and necessarily shapes my hermeneutical perspective for the reading of Scripture.
Hence, throughout my academic career, while teaching the unfolding “redemptive-historical character” of the Scriptures, I was content never to label the system of my Christian beliefs concerning the cohesiveness of Scripture. Of course, one’s method for interpreting the Bible ought to follow and conform to the texture and terrain of Scripture. Eventually, I was instrumental in developing an introductory course for our university students we called “The Progress of Redemption,” reflecting the important point I learned from Vos, that God’s spoken word progressively tracks with God’s redemptive deeds. When teaching the course, I instructed students that because we ought always to be prepared to adjust our understanding of Scripture, we must distinguish our hermeneutic from God’s written revelation.
Since I completed the M.Div. and Th.M., I have held a third position, distinct from Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. When the school of thought emerged, that came to be labeled New Covenant Theology, it briefly held some attraction, but various aspects restrained my embrace. Then, about a decade ago, my friend Stephen Wellum assigned the title “Progressive Covenantalism” to our shared understanding of Scripture’s storyline. Reluctantly, I conceded to accept it because the title aptly describes how I understand the unfolding of God’s “redemptive-historical” drama that features Christ Jesus. The designation properly describes how Scripture itself presents the storyline of God’s reign progressively unfolding through historical covenants. So, I am comfortable embracing the designation “Progressive Covenantalism” as descriptive of the biblical storyline but not prescriptive hermeneutically. Again, perhaps I’m too fastidious, but I studiously avoid saying, “From a Progressive Covenantal perspective. . . .” So, “Progressive Covenantalism” is suitably descriptive of the “redemptive-historical character” of the Scriptures, but I carefully steer away from speaking of “Progressive Covenantal hermeneutics.” The biblical text itself determines how we must read it and that the biblical covenants progressively unfold and build toward the crescendo of the New Covenant must conditional our Bible reading. Whatever we may call our interpretive map, it must resemble and be corrected by Scripture’s topographical contours and lines.
Conclusion
If we truly embrace the Bible as God’s Word, we Christians endeavor to bring our understanding of the biblical text into conformity with the contours of the Scriptures. So, as we read the Bible, we bring to it our present understanding of its message and how it is put together and submit to God’s Word to correct our shortfalls and biases. No matter how well-instructed in God’s Word we may be, we must always humbly welcome Scripture’s corrections.
I have found immensely helpful instruction from reading many books, including the four shown in the graphic at the head of this blog. When I was a seminarian, I naively characterized my hermeneutic as “redemptive-historical.” Subsequent, careful studying of Geerhardus Vos’s writings convinced me that I should avoid making that claim any longer. I have found, however, that most others who have found Vos, Ridderbos, and Gaffin helpful continue to speak of practicing “redemptive-historical hermeneutics.” I grant the benefit of the doubt to those who use this terminology that they intend something better than they express, though I believe it is not helpful but injurious nomenclature.
Truly, the Scriptures contain God’s progressive revelation that is redemptive-historical in character, featuring the promised Messiah at its core by way of reconfirming foreshadows and prophecies through covenants that reach their collective, climactic fulfillment in God’s Son, Christ Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:1-4). Hence, the Bible as God’s “Christocentric” or even “Christotelic revelation” must condition and govern our reading of the Bible’s redemptive-historical storyline with its multiformity and varied contours. We should do this without confusing nor subtly equating our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself by labeling it “redemptive-historical hermeneutics” or “Christocentric hermeneutics.” To employ “redemptive-historical,” an apt description of God’s progressive revelation, to describe our interpretation of Scripture seems to be unhelpful, suggesting more than we should intend, implying our influence over the text as readers, something biblical theologians, in their best thinking, would and must reject.
Afterword: I could post a fourth article concerning another widespread error that affects scholars and laypeople alike, but I will not. It is what I have addressed in a variety of places, bluntly stated: interpretation is neither literal nor figurative. But, since I published a recent article on that, it should suffice.
[1] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 9th printing (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 14. Vos contended that “‘History of Special Revelation’ is greatly to be preferred [over ‘Biblical Theology’]. It expresses with precision and in an invidious manner what our science aims to be. It is difficult, however, to change a name which has the sanction of usage.”
[2] Geerhardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980), 15. Italics original; bold added.
[3] Ibid., 7.
[4] Richard Gaffin, “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul,” in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, ed. E. R. Geehan, reprint 1977, (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971), 232.
[5] Ibid.