TMSJ 31/2 (Fall 2020) 151–171 AN ANALYSIS OF GEERHARDUS VOS’ NATURE AND METHOD OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY Richard C. Barcellos Ph.D., Whitefield Theological Seminary Associate Professor of Exegetical Theology IRBS Theological Seminary * * * * * When Geerhardus Vos stood to give his inaugural address for the “new chair” of biblical theology at the College of New Jersey in 1894 (now Princeton University), the field of study had been dominated by “the liberal/critical biblical-theological enterprise” for over one-hundred years. He was a Reformed-orthodox theologian entering a field of “perverse influences.” This paper traces the thought of Vos historically, beginning with his inaugural address (1894) and concluding with his last published work (1948). The focus of this paper is the nature and method of biblical theology as presented by Vos. This historical study discovers a harmony of thought—a hermeneutic grounded not only in how Scripture is formed, but in what it says and how it says it. He views revelation as pre-redemptive, redemptive, historical, organic, progressive, Christocentric, epochal-covenantal, and multiform. Vos would one day be considered “an all-time master in the field of Biblical Theology.” Whether or not readers agree with his methodology and/or doctrinal formulations, his work merits our attention, respect, and appreciation. * * * * * J. I. Packer identified Geerhardus Vos as “an all-time master in the field of Biblical Theology.”1 The significance of Vos’ writings should be recognized, whether or not one agrees with his methodology and/or doctrinal formulations. Some argue that his method was a novel paradigm shift in the history and development of Reformed theological interpretation. Others argue (and, in my opinion, rightly so) that though he uses new terms and phrases, the concepts embodied in those terms and phrases can be traced back to (at least) the post-Reformation era of the seventeenth 1 John Owen, Biblical Theology or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth in Six Books (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), xi. 151 152 | Nature and Method of Biblical Theology century.2 In this article, readers will be introduced to a sliver of Vos’ writings, concentrating on the nature and method of biblical theology. Our approach is historical, analyzing the thought of Vos, while not seeking to ground his thinking in Scripture. Readers interested in his biblical justification for his method are encouraged to read his writings. We will examine one of Geerhardus Vos’ earliest lectures on biblical theology (1894), a magazine article (1902), and his last published book (while living) (1948). Material will be gathered from these sources to provide a working knowledge of Vos’ understanding of biblical theology. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation contains his 1894 lecture entitled, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline.”3 His 1902 magazine article, “The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology,” was reprinted in Kerux in 1999.4 And finally, Vos’ famous Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments5 contains a thorough explanation of what Vos intended by the phrase “biblical theology” in 1948, a year before his death. These samples will reveal the development of Vos’ thought on this matter from his early years at Princeton to his final days. We will examine each in historical order and then draw some brief, concluding observations. “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline” This lecture was delivered on May 8, 1894 as Vos’ inaugural address as Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary.6 He was 32 years of age and beginning his teaching career at Princeton. Vos spoke as a representative of Reformed-orthodox theology on an issue that had been dominated by “the liberal/critical biblical-theological enterprise”7 for over one–hundred years. Introduction In the introductory section of this lecture, Vos laid out his reasons for addressing this subject. The primary reason was because biblical theology was “a new chair”8 at Princeton, with Vos as its first occupant. He believed it to be his responsibility to present this material. Vos said, “I consider it my duty to introduce to you this branch 2 See Richard C. Barcellos, The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology: Geerhardus Vos and John Owen—Their Methods of and Contributions to the Articulation of Redemptive History (Owensboro, KY: RBAP, 2010), from which this article is taken. 3 Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980), 3–24, referenced as RHBI. 4 Geerhardus Vos, “The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology,” Kerux 14, no. 1 (May 1999): 3–8. This article is reprinted from The Union Seminary Magazine 13, no. 3 (February–March 1902): 194–99. It will be referenced as “Nature and Aims.” 5 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), referenced as BTV. 6 Vos, RHBI, 3. 7 James T. Dennison, Jr., “What is Biblical Theology? Reflections on the Inaugural Address of Geerhardus Vos,” Kerux, 2, no. 1 (May 1987): 34. 8 Vos, RHBI, 3. The Master’s Seminary Journal | 153 of theological science, and to describe, in general terms at least, its nature and the manner in which I hope to teach it.”9 But there was a second reason. He continued: This is all the more necessary because of the wide divergence of opinion in various quarters concerning the standing of the newest accession to the circle of sacred studies. Some have lauded her to the skies as the ideal of scientific theology, in such extravagant terms as to reflect seriously upon the character of her sisters of greater age and longer standing. Others look upon the new-comer with suspicion, or even openly dispute her right to a place in the theological family. We certainly owe it to her and to ourselves to form a well-grounded and intelligent judgment on the question. I hope that what I shall say will in some degree shed light on the points at issue, and enable you to judge impartially and in accordance with the facts of the case.10 Vos set out, then, to introduce to his Princeton colleagues his method of biblical theology in the acknowledged context of its abuse at the hand of the liberal/critical enterprise and wide-spread suspicion concerning its place as a legitimate theological discipline. Before Vos defined what he meant by biblical theology, he offered a definition “of what Theology is in general.”11 He defined theology as “knowledge concerning God.”12 He then argued that theology was a science unto itself. It was unique and to be distinguished from all other sciences. This is so, said Vos, not only because of the object of theology—God—but also because of its “altogether unique relation to this object, for which no strict analogy can be found elsewhere.”13 He said: In all the other sciences man is the one who of himself takes the first step in approaching the objective world, in subjecting it to his scrutiny, in compelling it to submit to his experiments—in a word, man is the one who proceeds actively to make nature reveal her facts and her laws. In Theology this relation between the subject and object is reversed. Here it is God who takes the first step to approach man for the purpose of disclosing His nature, nay, who creates man in order that He may have a finite mind able to receive the knowledge of His infinite perfections. In Theology the object, far from being passive, by the act of creation first posits the subject over against itself, and then as the living God proceeds to impart to this subject that to which of itself it would have no access. For “the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.” Strictly speaking, therefore, we should say that not God in and of Himself, but God in so far as He has revealed Himself, is the object of theology.14 9 Vos, RHBI, 3–4. 10 Ibid., 4. 11 Ibid. Vos follows a similar pattern over 40 years later in his Biblical Theology, as will be seen below. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid., 4–5. 154 | Nature and Method of Biblical Theology Vos grounded theology in revelation. God is the revealer. Man is the passive recipient of this revelation. God is the object of theology’s quest, but only in so far as He has revealed Himself: “Theology presupposes an active self-disclosure of God.”15 Vos then discussed how man’s sinful condition and God’s will to be known brings about “that new self-disclosure of God which we call supernatural revelation.”16 Though man in sin retains some knowledge of God, in order to possess “all pure and adequate information in divine things,” “the objective self- manifestation of God as the Redeemer” is necessary and brings into being “a new order of things.”17 Redemptive revelation comes as the objective, self-disclosure of God as Redeemer and is subsequently deposited in the Holy Scriptures so that “the human mind is enabled to obtain that new knowledge”18 by the new birth and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Assuming other sub-branches of exegetical theology (the origin of Scripture, its canonization, the Hebrew and Greek languages of the Old and New Testaments, and the exegesis of its content) brings Vos to his definition of biblical theology. Definition of Biblical Theology The first evidence of a definition of biblical theology occurred relatively early in the lecture: In general, then, Biblical Theology is that part of Exegetical Theology which deals with the revelation of God.