Part 1: Basic Principles⤒🔗

1. Introduction←↰⤒🔗

Throughout history there have been many debates about how we should interpret the Bible. In the Middle Ages, it was common to look for four different levels of meaning in every passage: a literal meaning; a hidden, allegorical meaning; a moral lesson for daily life; and an indication of our hope for the future, heavenly life.

The Reformation challenged the arbitrariness of this four-fold approach. Reformers, like Calvin, emphasized the importance of the grammar of the text and its historical context – including the wider, whole-Bible context. At the end of the day, Scripture itself must dictate the interpretation of Scripture, not man and his imagination.

However, that was not the end of the debate. The Reformers themselves argued about the extent to which Christ should be seen in every text. More recently, there have been arguments about whether the doctrines of systematic theology should be allowed to colour the interpretation of a text. Around the time of World War II, there was also a debate in Holland about how a proper appreciation of the redemptive-historical situation must govern the preaching. The nature of Christ-centred preaching was a part of this debate. One side warned of the dangers of using Biblical descriptions of the behaviour of various characters – especially in OT narrative passages – primarily as moral examples for us to follow (exemplarism). The other side felt that an undue emphasis on the redemptive-historical context resulted in a history “lecture” lacking in practical application – rather than a sermon.

2. Abuses of the Redemptive-Historic Approach←↰⤒🔗

Sometimes devotees of the redemptive-historic approach did go to extremes. Some do indeed appear to argue that a preacher must make no application. He simply unfolds the text, and leaves the application to the Holy Spirit. This, it is argued, prevents the preacher from focusing on his own favoured applications in a “hobby-horse” manner. It is also pointed out that if a particular application becomes the focus of attention, those who need to make other applications of the same text may be hindered from doing so. Different people in the same congregation will need to make different applications to themselves, according to their particular needs. Leave that work to the Holy Spirit, we are told.

While these dangers are real, I believe it goes too far to rule out application altogether. I suppose every time a preacher does anything more than read a text, he risks focusing too much on one thing and not enough one another. Why not leave out all explanation of the historical background, all explanation of the language of the text and all use of illustrations, on the same argument? Couldn’t it all be left to the Holy Spirit, lest the preacher intrude his own thoughts?

Certainly we depend entirely upon the Holy Spirit for inward illumination and application. But the Spirit uses means. In Col. 3:16 the apostle urges, “Let the Word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another…” Wisdom, taking our definition from the OT (e.g., Proverbs 1:1-7), is a matter of instruction, insight, discernment and application. Admonishing is also a matter of application. The reproof, correction and training in righteousness of which Paul speaks in 2 Timothy 3:16 is also a matter of application of the Word. Many of the NT Epistles – consider, for example, Romans – provide the instruction in principles first, then follow with practical application. Moreover, samples of addresses and/or sermons from the apostles contain specific application (e.g., Acts 20:28-35).

The best approach, I would suggest, is to let the text speak by taking its own “cues” (hints as to the main point(s) of the text). If the text dwells on a specific application, then the interpreter and the preacher should not ignore that application. It should be his focus. If the focus of the text is on our understanding of some aspect, say, of the doctrine of God, then the focus of the sermon should be on our understanding of that truth. Bringing our understanding in line with the Word of God would then be the main application. Let the text itself speak!

In that connection, note that the Scripture does sometimes use the behaviour as men as either positive or negative examples. In 3 John, the ungodly Diotrophes is contrasted with Demetrius, a man of good testimony. In 1 Corinthians 10, Israel’s history is seen as an “example (or “type”) … for our instruction.” That history includes the “types” or foreshadowings of Christ, such as the rock from which they drank, which represents Christ (v. 4). But it also includes the immorality of the people, with the application, “let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (v. 12). There is a big difference, however, between letting the text speak with its use of examples, and the interpreter adding applications of his own making, irrespective of the context.

3. Problems with the Exemplarist Approach←↰⤒🔗

Generally speaking, the exemplarist approach tries to be “both-and.” Neither the text nor the wider redemptive-historical context are completely ignored. They might even be given considerable attention in the sermon. But then the application is added, along with the use of human examples from the narrative, to make the text “relevant” to today.

On the surface this might sound quite reasonable, a good balance between historical context and practical application. There is no doubt it can be edifying, if the examples are being used to make some point that is taught somewhere in the Scriptures. There are, however, a number of problems with this approach.

Perhaps the chief danger is the desire to “make” the text relevant. Our task is not to make a text relevant. It is to see how the text already is relevant. Each text is relevant in its own, unique way. That is what we must seek to bring out. So the problem is not the adding of application, it is adding the wrong application – that which does not flow out of the text.

It is also our primary task to hold forth the Lord Jesus Christ. Application should serve the proclamation of Christ, not overshadow it. When sermons are application-driven there is a danger that the application becomes the main thing. People go home remembering what they should/should not do, more than they remember Christ. In some ways, application is like illustration. Illustrations are important for shedding light on the meaning of the text. But they should not overshadow the text. If they become too central, people will remember the illustration, but not the point of it. Application, too, can have the same effect. If it becomes more central than it is in the text, people will remember the application more than the main point of the text. They will remember the application more than the reason for the application – the grace of Jesus Christ. Illustrations should therefore be sufficient to shed light on the text, but not so dominant that they take the spotlight. I would suggest a similar approach to application: enough to shed light on how each person should apply the text to his own situation, but not so dominant that the spot-light is moved away from Christ and onto the application.

I would also suggest that application-driven sermons tend to sound much the same after a while. Preachers tend to focus on certain rather well-worn applications – perhaps their own hobby-horses – which are then tacked on to texts that come from a variety of contexts. The congregation might hear, for example, many sermons where the main point appears to be that we should love and forgive one another – irrespective of whether this application is in view in the text. When we ignore the cues the Holy Spirit has placed in each text, we tend to lose sight of the uniqueness of each text.

There is another potential problem in seeking to make a text relevant. It is often coupled with a feeling that doctrine is mere “head knowledge,” while “application” lies in the realm of the heart. This is a dubious distinction. It is more accurate to say that there is only one kind of true knowledge, and that is knowledge that affects the whole person. Doctrine that is truly accepted will affect the whole person. Practical application that is truly held will affect the whole person. It is true that we are capable of paying lip-service to doctrine. It is also true that we are capable of behaving outwardly in a formally correct way, while lacking the proper inward motivation.

The “heart” is the whole inner person, including the inner activities of the mind. Some teachings will have more immediate impact on the mind. That is still a matter of the heart. Other teachings will have more immediate impact on our behaviour – as well as the reason for our behaviour. That also involves the heart. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity will affect how we think about God, what we believe about Him. In one sense we could say that the doctrine of the Trinity comes into every aspect of the Christian’s behaviour – every deed should be to the glory of the Triune God; exemplified, made possible and acceptable by Christ; motivated by the working of the Holy Spirit. We could also talk about how this doctrine governs how we pray and what we pray when seeking God’s help to behave rightly. But a text that focuses on the doctrine of the Trinity may not have in view any particular application of that kind. We may mention some of these other applications, but we should not give the impression that these are the main point or intended application of the text, unless that is so.

Similarly, a text might focus on believing true doctrine in contrast to false doctrine – for example, 1 John 4:2-3. If the emphasis is not placed on our inward belief and confession of Christ – a matter of the heart – how are we going to be able to apply it to “testing the spirits” and rejecting false teachers (v. 1)? The application-driven preacher might want to focus on how we show whether we really confess Christ from the heart, and talk about our personal devotions, our walk of obedience, or whatever other fruits he likes to emphasize. However the focus of the application here should be on the rejection of error. And for that action to follow, we must have a right understanding of the truth.

In conclusion, then, the redemptive-historic approach involves listening to the text in its context – rather than artificially “making” it relevant by some remotely connected behavioural application. The interpreter must look carefully for the Holy Spirit’s indications of the main thrust. He must consider how, precisely, this thrust points to the Lord Jesus Christ. And his application should then flow from these considerations. In this way, Christ will be held forth clearly in a unique way for every text. And the proclamation of Christ will not be overshadowed by any exhortation to behave in a particular way. At the same time, there will be relevance, application, and wherever necessary, exhortation to “be” what Christ has made us.

Part 2: Seeing Christ in the Text of Scriptures←⤒🔗

In the previous article, I argued for a ‘textual’ redemptive-historic approach to interpreting the Scripture. In other words, we take our cues from the text, see how it holds Christ forth in its unique way, and derive our application in a way that serves that focus upon Christ. In order to do that, however, we need to be able to recognise the way in which Christ is being presented in each text. I would suggest that one of the big reasons many struggle with this kind of approach is that while they know plenty about Jesus Christ, they haven’t learned how to apply that knowledge to the analysis of a text.

For that reason, I want to outline some of the different ways in which Christ may be held forth in the Scriptures. This is such a rich area of Bible-knowledge. I cannot claim to have done more than scratch the surface. No doubt the reader can think of some aspects I have left out. But perhaps these ‘scratchings’ may whet your appetite for the subject – the revelation of Christ in the Scriptures.

The Person of Jesus Christ←↰⤒🔗

Firstly, as to His Person, Christ is revealed in the Scriptures as both God and man. In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ often referred to Himself in the ‘I AM’ language familiar from the OT – such as in Jn. 14:6. In doing so, He was identifying Himself with God, ‘Yahweh.’ He referred to God as His father in a special sense. He also showed His divine power in His miracles. Accordingly, men worshipped Him (Mt. 2:11, 14:33, 28:9, Jn. 9:38). He was and is the Lord, the Son of God, the eternal, Second Person of the Trinity.

The Old Testament also indicates this about the Christ. In Is. 9:6 He is called ‘Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.’ These, and the other attributes of God, apply to Jesus Christ. They apply to all three Persons of the Trinity. Thus, when we read in the OT about Yahweh’s might and majesty, His holiness and His righteousness, His love and wrath and justice, the Lord Jesus Christ is also being revealed to us.

We find something similar when we consider Christ as the Word and the Wisdom of God. God’s Word goes forth from His mouth. It therefore partakes of His character – holy, mighty, righteous, powerful, and so on. In the New Testament we find that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (Jn. 1:14), and the Wisdom of God incarnate (1 Cor. 1:24). The written Word is ultimately from Him, about Him and fulfilled in Him. It should be no surprise to us that He displays the same attributes as God, since He is the Word and Wisdom of God.

The connection between the written Word and the Word-made-flesh opens up another aspect of the revelation of Christ in the Bible. When we read Wisdom Literature, we are essentially reading about Christ, the Wisdom of God. In the Book of Proverbs, for example, Wisdom is portrayed as a woman who should be desired by a young man, sought, embraced and settled down with. This analogy is telling us to desire, seek, embrace and settle down with Christ.

Similarly, when we read of the words and works of the prophets, who tell forth God’s Word, we are being pointed to the Great Prophet who reveals Himself. For example, 1 Kings 17f tells of the prophet Elijah, his withdrawal from the land, His return to bring judgment and rescue. Essentially, this is about the activity of God’s Word in Israel. And the activity of the Word, is the activity of Christ, the Word‑made-flesh.

Christ is also revealed as man. The New Testament takes pains to make it clear that Jesus Christ was a real man, Who experienced what we experience, yet without sin (Heb. 2:17-18, 4:15). The NT shows Him weary at times, it shows Him weeping, it shows Him being assailed by the devil and it shows Him suffering and dying. The common term, ‘Son of Man,’ also indicates His human nature.

The Old Testament points to this truth already in Gen. 3:15, the first statement of the Gospel. He is the ‘Seed of the woman.’ He is alluded to when we read of the covenant promise to Abraham and his ‘seed’ (Gal. 3:16). His human nature is evident in the sacrificial system, since it points to His suffering, which can only take place if he is truly man. It is evident in His descent from David – He is the ‘Son of David’ (Mt. 1:1). It is foreshadowed in the covenant God made with David and his seed (2 Sam. 7). The OT also prophesies the coming of the ‘Son of Man’ (Dan. 7:13-14), His birth (Is. 7:14, 9:6) and His suffering (Ps. 22; Is. 53). He is the perfect ‘Israelite’ and our Great Example, keeping the obligations of the covenant in every respect, fulfilling all righteousness for us, being ‘perfected’ (Heb. 5:9). He is the ‘last Adam/second man’ (1 Cor. 15:45f), tested in our place like Adam, only with complete success. All of these things have particular reference to His human nature.

The Offices of Jesus Christ←↰⤒🔗

The ‘three-fold’ office of Christ is a well-known doctrine in our circles. It is set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism, as an explanation of the title, ‘Christ,’ meaning ‘Anointed One’ or ‘Messiah’ (Lord’s Day 12). Christ has been anointed our great Prophet, Priest and King.

The Old Testament points to His Messianic office when it tells us about Adam’s original calling, especially his calling to rule the earth. It foreshadows His offices through Melchizedek and Moses, through the Judges, and through all the prophets, priests and kings who served God. Along with Moses, David is especially singled out as a ‘type’ of Christ. Solomon and Elijah also play a prominent role.

The Lord Jesus Christ is even foreshadowed in the failures of these office-bearers, for there we see the need of a better Prophet, Priest and King than the Old Testament could provide. The activities of false prophets, priests and kings show Christ by contrast. He is foreshadowed in the stipulations about the ideal King of Israel (Dt. 17) and prophesied in the promise of a Great Prophet (Dt. 18). When the superiority of Moses over the other prophets is set forth (Num. 12:6-8), we are being pointed to Christ’s greater superiority. Passages that talk about the nature of true prophecy (Dt. 18:19-22, Jer. 23:25f) tell us about the nature of His prophetic office. And when the people reject the ministry of true prophets, priests and kings, and are punished by God – as in Korah’s rebellion, or Absalom’s – we have a foretaste of the consequences of rejecting the Great Prophet, Priest and King.

The Work of Jesus Christ←↰⤒🔗

Calvin once wrote that the Three Persons of the Trinity ‘do all things together.’ We are used to thinking of one Person or other of the Trinity coming to the fore in God’s dealings with His creatures: the Father predestines, creates, and governs; the Son redeems; and the Spirit applies the work of Christ to the elect. While this emphasis is Biblical, let us not forget that Jesus Christ is also involved in election (Eph. 1:4), creation (Col. 1:16), ruling the world (Eph. 1:19-23) and sending the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:16, 26; 16:7). When the Scripture speaks of the works of the Father and the Spirit, Christ is also in view.

However, He comes to the fore in the accomplishment of the work of redemption. This work entails His incarnation; His life of perfect obedience, both the active pursuing of righteousness and the enduring of the suffering we deserved because of our sin; His struggle against Satan; His Death and resurrection; the Ascension; His present heavenly Session and Intercession; His sending of Holy Spirit at Pentecost; and His final Return and Judgment.

The OT points to these works in various ways – prophecies, types, laws, historical developments within Israel, and so on. Consider, for example, Is. 7:14 on the incarnation; David’s frequent rejection on His humiliation; Is. 53 or the ritual of the scapegoat (Lev. 16) – for that matter, the sacrificial system in general – on His death; Ps. 16:10 on the resurrection; the intercessions of Moses, Aaron and the high priests on Christ’s heavenly intercession; and Ps. 2 on Christ’s heavenly rule and final judgment.

The Christ of the Covenant←↰⤒🔗

The covenant of grace, which God established with Abram and fitted to Israel under Moses, has been fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant. He is the Mediator of that covenant, like Moses and the High Priests, only better – as the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us. As Mediator, the Lord Jesus reconciles the two estranged parties – God and sinful man – and secures for the elect the fulness of covenant-blessing. He does this by taking the covenant-curse upon Himself and also perfectly obeying God’s covenant-law in our place. Moreover, He makes known to us the truth about God and our relation to Him. He reveals the way of salvation and the life of grateful service that the covenant involves.

Thus, whenever we read in the OT about the covenant – its gracious promises, its conditions, its blessings upon obedience and curses upon covenant-breaking – we are reading about our Better Mediator.

Christ and the Church←↰⤒🔗

Obviously, the Lord Jesus Christ has a very special relationship with the church. He is her Redeemer. In a sense, he is also her Creator (Eph. 5:25-27; and 2 Pet. 2:1, which uses language that suggests the ownership of a Creator rather than an atoning sacrifice). He is the church’s Great Prophet, Priest and King. He is the Great Shepherd of the flock, Head of the Body and Bridegroom of the Bride.

The Church is not only found in the New Testament. The nation Israel, from Exodus on, is the Church of the Old Testament. Prior to that, the Church is seen in patriarchal family-groups. As we read about her ups and downs, we are seeing Christ call her and build her and rescue her. In her failures, we see her need of Him. The Lord Jesus is never far from view in the history of His body and flock and bride.

‘Types’ of Christ←↰⤒🔗

‘Types’ are foreshadowings of New Testament fulfillment in the Old Testament. The light that was poured out with the coming of Christ reaches back into the Old Testament, leaving its mark there. There are many such ‘types’: Melchizedek (Gen. 14/Heb. 7); Moses as mediator; the Rock in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4); the Bronze Serpent (Num. 21); the Tabernacle/Temple, with its structure, sacrificial system & priesthood; and David, to mention a few.

Typology should not be confused with allegory. Allegorising was a problem in the medieval church. Allegory involves the arbitrary invention of symbolic references in the text, according to man’s imagination. Types, on the other hand, are indicated by cues within the text, or by later revelation from God. Types occur because God, the Lord of history, fulfills in history the spiritual realities to which the type looks forward. There is a danger that the exemplarist will allegorically invent references to the modern believer’s faith-experience. There is also a danger that the proponent of the redemptive-historic approach will invent references to Christ. To avoid these dangers, it is important for the interpreter of Scripture to look carefully and prayerfully at both the immediate text and the rest of Scripture.

Prophecies of Christ←↰⤒🔗

The Old Testament contains a mixture of predictive prophecy concerning the future, and prophetic revelation of past events. Regarding the future, the Old Testament tends to view Christ’s coming as one event, without separating the various components. This is sometimes called ‘prophetic foreshortening.’ Thus elements from the First and Second Coming are often ‘mixed’ together in Old Testament prophecy. Consider, for example, Gen. 3:15, 49:10, Is. 7:14, 9:6-7, 53:1-12, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Jer. 31:31-34, Ezek. 36:22ff, Micah 5:1-5a, and Mal. 4. The Messianic Psalms – for example, Ps. 22 – also foretell the Christ, building on David’s typological role.

The New Testament makes clear the distinct elements in Christ’s coming. However, some major events were still future from the perspective of the New Testament authors. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit was still future from the point of view of the Gospels, as was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Of course, the Second Coming and final judgment still lie in the future. The New Testament therefore also contains predictive prophecies concerning Christ’s activities in the near and distant future – for example, Mt. 24, 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11, 2 Thess. 2, 1 Pet. 3, and the Book of Revelation.

We have considered some of the various ways in which the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the pages of the Bible – in the history, the Law and the promises, the covenants, the types and prophecies, the Wisdom Literature. He is revealed as God and man, as Word and Wisdom, as Prophet, Priest and King, Mediator, Substitutionary Sacrifice and as our great example. We have only scratched the surface. But even from this it should be clear how extensively we find Him in the Scriptures. There is no part of the Bible where we cannot see Him revealed.

Nor should we want to see Him omitted. There is nothing better in this life than to see Christ in the Scriptures, and to hold Him forth for others to see there. Important as it is to call on men to live according to the covenant-obligations, as a rule of gratitude, there is something even more important – the Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we are forgiven when we fail to live this life as we should, and Who provides the motive and basis for godly living.

It is therefore vitally important that interpreters of the Bible – and especially preachers – examine each text before them with these questions in mind:

• Is Christ revealed here as God or man?
   
• Is He seen in His three-fold office?
   
• Is some aspect of His redemptive work in view?
   
• Is Christ being revealed through the setting forth of the covenant?
   
• Are we being told about the nature or activities of the covenant community (Old Testament Israel or New Testament church) so that we can learn about the nature and activities of her Head and Bridegroom?
   
• Is there some type or prophecy of Christ involved?

Once we have answered these questions, we will be in a position to apply the text properly to ourselves and others and – Lord willing – to have our hearts and minds fixed above all else on the Author and Perfecter of our faith. In fact, I hope to give some worked examples of this approach in a third and final article.

Part 3: The Application←⤒🔗

So far we have considered the basic principles behind the redemptive-historic or Christ-centred approach to interpreting the Scripture. We have also seen why it is called “Christ-centred,” and some of the ways in which the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the Scripture. This focus upon Christ does not mean, however, that application must be ignored. It is more a question of which applications, than whether we have application.

When it comes to the application of a Scripture passage, it is hard to say, “Here is the correct application and it is the only one.” Preachers, for example, will have differing opinions even on the basic thrust of a text and its Christ-relatedness. Not surprisingly, therefore, applications will vary widely.

We may also make a distinction between primary and secondary applications. Some applications may arise from a minor point made in a text, others from the main thrust. A preacher may also use a text to illustrate some application that arises from another text, though he should make clear that his comment is extraneous to the text at hand.

Sometimes, taking a redemptive-historic approach will result in a completely different kind of application than that which arises from an exemplaristic or moralistic approach. At other times, the general direction of the application will be the same, though something more will need to be said about the Lord Jesus Christ. Often, the difference will lie in the pathway one takes to arrive at the application. Is it derived by moving directly from the characters in the story to us, or is it derived by moving from the characters to Christ, and thence to us?

Eli and Sons←↰⤒🔗

For example, the fate of Eli’s sons (1 Samuel 1, 4) might be used as an illustration of how serious consequences can result from permissive parenting, though that is not the point of the account as it is recorded in 1 Samuel. If a preacher does use Scripture in this way, he should make it clear that this is not really the point of the story. The point of the story, I would suggest, is that things had come to a not-so-pretty pass in Israel. If this is what was going on in the priestly families, imagine how bad it was in the rest of Israel. How desperately they needed faithful prophets, priests and kings to point them to a better Prophet, Priest and King! How desperately they needed to be pointed to Christ! Application would then focus on our need of Christ in a fallen world where corruption even enters the church. I suppose one could focus on the wild behaviour of “P.K.s” (preachers’ kids) as evidence of that – though I’m not sure how many pastors would be eager to do that!

David and Goliath←↰⤒🔗

The story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) is one of the best-loved and most-abused of the Old Testament. It has often been preached as a fine example of what a believer can do if he just has faith. If you just have faith, you can overcome even the most gigantic of problems – your “Goliaths.” Some interpreters have really gone to town on the details, speculating about what David’s five, smooth river-stones represent.

This kind of interpretation is typical of the exemplaristic approach. The application is made by drawing a direct connection between the Old Testament saint and the New Testament believer. Because David’s experiences are so similar to ours, it is assumed that the application involves our imitation of David.

The problem with this kind of approach is that it ignores the fact that Jesus Christ stands between David and us. Our connection to David is through Him. First we must see how David points to Christ, then consider how to go from Christ to us.

I would suggest that there are at least three ways in which David points to Christ in this passage. First, we are being prepared to regard David as a good shepherd-king – in contrast to Saul. He deals with Goliath the way he has dealt with lions and bears, while tending the sheep. For David cares about his God and his brethren. Saul is a king like those of the nations. He trusts in armour and the strength of a man’s arm. David trusts in God, as would the Great Shepherd-King, Jesus Christ.

Second, David is deeply offended by Goliath’s blasphemous attacks upon the Name of the Lord. Psalm 69:9 foretells that the Christ would be consumed with zeal for God’s house. Think of how He dealt with the money-changers at the Temple.

Third, David’s defeat of Goliath delivers Israel. David points ahead to the Saviour and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, Who defeated Satan, sin and death.

If these are the main respects in which Christ is revealed in this text, how shall we apply it to the modern believer? Why does the New Testament present Christ as our great Shepherd-King, Who is consumed with zeal for His Father’s house and delivers His sheep? So that we accept Him as such! In a way, faith is also the main application with both a redemptive-historic and an exemplaristic approach. There are, however, two main differences: How we got there – by means of the David-Christ-us connection, as opposed to a similarity between David’s experiences and ours; and the fact that the application concerns faith in Christ’s great victory, rather than the need for us to have a great faith like David’s.

The Persecution and Vindication of David←↰⤒🔗

Many of David’s Psalms involve a plea to God for rescue from enemies. David certainly had his fair share of opposition from within Israel and without – Philistines, Saul and Absalom, to mention a few. In Psalm 140 David asks God to thwart the wicked persecutor and to preserve and rescue His servant. He knows that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted and justice for the poor.

Those who are eager to jump straight into application that is relevant to the believer today might talk about how we should turn to God for help whenever we are persecuted by evil men. We can leave it to Him to vindicate us instead of seeking our own revenge. Many examples could be given of how men may cause us harm, even within the church, along with the ways in which we wrongly seek to pay them back.

If the interpreter is endowed with a deep concern for the plight of the poor, he might spend some time exploring the ways in which the rich oppress the poor. He might stress that we must do what we can for those who are needy, because the Lord has a special concern for the poor and afflicted.

What we must remember, however, is that David’s suffering of persecution points to Christ in His rejection by men. Likewise, David’s plea for, and enjoyment of vindication, points to the Father’s vindication of the Son of David. This is evident from Christ’s quotation of David from the cross – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46/Psalm 22:1). Similarly, Matthew applies Psalms 22:18 and 69:21 to Christ’s experiences on the cross (Matthew 27:34-35).

Bringing in this connection to Christ results in a shift of emphasis in the application of Psalm 140 (and 22 and 69). Instead of focusing simply upon how we should trust God to vindicate us when men assail us – and in the meantime make sure we help rather than oppress the poor – we will focus upon trusting that God will rescue us from our greatest oppressors, Satan, sin and death. He will do so because the Son of David was oppressed and afflicted in our place, especially on the cross. Because of him we will be vindicated, though we do not deserve it in ourselves. For God maintains the cause of those who are poor and afflicted – those who are afflicted for Christ’s sake and who turn to Him in their extremity. It is this that enables us to endure persecution at the hand of Satan’s human allies. If we want to bring in the subject of our response to human persecutors, this is the point at which it could be done – as an example of how trusting Christ for our deliverance makes a difference to the way we respond. But the focus of the application should be upon looking to Christ, rather than acting like David.

The Seeking of Wisdom←↰⤒🔗

As a further example, consider Proverbs 4:1-9. Like much of the Wisdom Literature, there is here a call to seek and acquire wisdom. As in the example above, the interpreter might chose to make the application on the basis of a similarity between the Old Testament saint and the New Testament believer. In Old Testament times, God calls His people to seek wisdom – as He does here in Proverbs 4 – and He does the same in New Testament times (James 1:5). Wisdom is needed for handling afflictions and temptations. It is even needed for handling happy experiences. Therefore we must seek Wisdom from God.

Once again, I would suggest that the problem with this approach lies not so much in what it says, as in what it does not say. In Proverbs, as I mentioned in the previous article, Wisdom is personified as a woman who is to be greatly desired. In Proverbs 4, a father advises his son to desire this woman and go after her, as a suitor might single-mindedly pursue the woman on whom he set his affections. In the New Testament, we find that Jesus Christ is the real Person who lies behind this personification of Proverbs. He is the Wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). The call to seek Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature therefore becomes a call to seek Christ, to desire and pursue Him above all else. In Proverbs 4, the emphasis is simply upon the intensity of the seeking. In the passage in James, the emphasis is upon seeking Christ the Wisdom of God so that one may be able to handle temptation in all manner of life-situations.

The Beatitudes and Gospel Proclamation←↰⤒🔗

In my opinion, the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23) are frequently misconstrued because of moralizing tendencies. Many books have been written on this portion of Scripture by eminent commentators: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Arthur Pink, and John Stott, amongst others. With all due respect to these men – and their very edifying writings – they tend to turn the Beatitudes into a series of moral commands – “Be humble, gentle, merciful” and so on. The most extreme of these is in Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ The Sermon on the Mount, where the Beatitudes are presented as a kind of order of the believer’s experience of spiritual growth, from conversion on.

This approach tends to play down (though not totally ignore) the Old Testament background to the Beatitudes. Comparison with passages such as Isaiah 61:1-3 and Psalm 37:11 shows that in the Beatitudes the Lord Jesus was basically heaping together a number of Old Testament terms for the people of God. Essentially, the terms are based on the fact that God’s people were those who, in their affliction, looked to God and His righteousness, mercy and peace. They looked to the day when Messiah would bring blessing and joy to replace tribulation and oppression. In other words, this is the Gospel in Old Testament terms. In Matthew 4:23, we read that the Lord was going around “preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.” Matthew 5 gives us the first taste of what that Gospel entailed. The rest of the Sermon on the Mount then goes on to outline how that Gospel affects the believer’s moral behaviour and relationships. But here at the start, we have the proclamation of the Gospel as such. Christ is saying that this is now the day of gladness that the Old Testament prophesied, when God’s afflicted people would be blessed by the coming of the Messiah. The structure of the Beatitudes is therefore not, “Be this or that!” It is “Blessed are these and those, because of certain promises.” The proclamation of the Gospel should not be turned into a moral imperative, even though it has moral implications.

The Messiah is revealed in other ways in the Beatitudes. He comes as the Suffering Servant. He fits the description of the one who is blessed – He is persecuted, poor and afflicted. He is also the One who receives blessing and vindication from His Father, which he shares with us. In Him, we inherit the earth, and much more.

I suppose one could draw a secondary application from the fact that those blessed are those who look to God in their extremity. But the primary application, as with other instances of Gospel proclamation, is that we must accept this truth with great joy and gladness. The Christ has come, and He comes with vindication and blessing. We must rejoice in this even though, for a little while, we still endure affliction.

Being what we are←↰⤒🔗

Having said that Gospel proclamation must not be turned into moral imperative, I must also caution that moral imperative must not be turned into nothing but a Gospel proclamation. Ephesians 5:1-21, for example, contains many imperatives: Be imitators of God! Walk in love! Immorality must not even be named among you! Do not be partakers! And so on. These are implications of the Gospel, as verse 2 makes clear.

That link to the Gospel is important. While we should not turn moral commands into Gospel promises, neither should we ignore the connection between Law and Gospel, command and promise. In this area too, Christ must be held forth. Law and Gospel both reveal Him, though in different ways.

There are at least three ways in which Christ is connected with any Biblical command. First, He is the One who has kept that command perfectly, on our behalf. Secondly, He is the One who has covered our failure to keep that command, by His sacrificial death. Third, He is the Perfect Example for us to imitate out of gratitude for His work on our behalf. In applying the Law, we must remember that it has more than one use. It shows us our need of Christ, as well as providing a rule of gratitude for what Christ has done for us. These are things that should be said without playing down the fact that here we deal with commands about our behaviour. In the application of this and other passages that deal with Law, sufficient practical examples should be given so that we all know, by God’s grace, what it means to practise this law in our own situation, out of the motive of gratitude.

The Line we must take←↰⤒🔗

I have tried to provide here sufficient examples to give some idea of proper lines of application in different kinds of texts – historical narrative, Wisdom Literature, Gospel and Law. Sometimes, the exemplaristic approach results in incorrect application of the particular text – though it may be in line with some other text, and therefore edifying. Often, however, the end-point will be similar, whether one takes a redemptive-historic or exemplaristic approach. But the line we take, how we get there, is important. For it involves the holding forth of Jesus Christ, as well as doing justice to the context of Scripture.

May the Lord grant to all who seek to handle His Word accurately – especially preachers – the ability to see and explain the thrust of the text and to proclaim the Christ who is revealed in each text. May He also use us as means to challenge each other in the application of His Word to our daily lives.