Video:
Audio:
I said Edmund Clowney’s gem of a book, Preaching and Biblical Theology (1961), was out of print, but I discovered afterward that it was reprinted by P&R in 2002.
Clowney writes: “If its [biblical theology’s] principle is grasped, it cannot be optional or superficial. Its approach is rather an essential step in the interpretation of the Bible .... In tracing the progress of revelation, biblical theology rests upon the unity of the primary authorship of Scripture and the organic continuity of God’s work in redemption and revelation. The Old Testament saints looked forward to Messiah’s day; they saw it and were glad. We, too, who know Christ’s finished work which brought in the end of the ages, look forward to the blessed hope of his appearing” (pp. 87-88).
“The method of biblical-theological preaching involves simply the proper use of these principles in the explanation of the sermon text. Its perspective clarifies the meaning of the text, emphasizes its central message, and provides for sound application” (p. 88).
STEP ONE: “Relate the text to its immediate theological horizon,” (p. 88), to the particular moment of redemptive history in which it is located.
STEP TWO: “Relate the event of the text, by way of its proper interpretation in its own period, to the whole structure of redemptive history; and in that way to us upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (p. 88).
Clowney is quoting 1 Cor 10:6, 11: “These things took place as examples (typoi) for us … These things happened to them as an example (typikōs), but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”
“The objective unfolding of the events must be understood in unity with the subjective response of faith or of unbelief, and this in terms of the stage of redemption and revelation which has been reached” (p. 88). “The Israelites are examples, not as an ancient people whose experiences happened to resemble ours in certain respects, but as the people of God, occupying a particular place in the plan of the ages, that is, in the history of redemption” (p. 79).
Applying these principles to the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17): “These two elements fit in perfect harmony. The theological interpretation, the redemptive-historical interpretation, is on David’s own lips as he goes into battle …. By the unction of the Spirit, David had insight into his own role in redemptive history. He understands the nature of Israel and the purpose of the existence of this nation. He also understands the nature of the covenant God, his omnipotence, and his faithfulness. Further, he understands his own position as an instrument of the Lord. His power is of the Lord who saves not with sword and spear, for the battle is his. Do we not perceive that David’s possession, in a measure, of this insight was necessary to his role in redemptive history? Indeed, is not this the issue in the rejection of Saul and the establishment of the kingdom in David’s hands?” (p. 83).
“In David’s later testing through the persecution of Saul, it is this principle in his own understanding that is repeatedly challenged by circumstances and embraced by faith. The true theocratic King must be one whose glory is the name of God, who comes not in his own name but in the name of the God who sends him” (p. 83).
“The real ethical and religious issues in David’s own experience are in perfect congruity with the significance of the redemptive history, for David himself perceives the nature of those issues, and his stature and usefulness in the history of redemption depend upon the fact that he does so. Saul, of course, has a negative role in the history of redemption because of his failure to perceive the issues; but the connection between the ethical and the redemptive-historical is the same” (p. 84).
“In connecting our experience with David’s we need only to understand that we upon whom the ends of the ages are come are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. [‘The feeblest among them shall be like David,’ Zech 12:8 ESV]. Each of us has official responsibility to exalt the name of the Lord of hosts before the people of God and the world” (p. 84).
“When we thus approach the Scriptures, ready to appreciate the [mental] grasp of the ‘redemptive-historical figures’ upon the principles of redemption, we are using a scriptural method. We have only to recall the descriptions of Abraham and Moses in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews to see that this is so. These men were not only actors in the great redemptive-historical movement that culminated in Christ. They themselves looked for Christ, and they possessed this Christian hope not as a bare prophetic enigma but as a living hope, full of meaning for their daily consciousness and experience. It conformed to the deepest realities of their religious life as they hungered and thirsted for God. They saw and greeted the promises from afar. They confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth – even as we, who have here no abiding city – and they desired that heavenly country, that city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (p. 84).
Comments