Biblical Theology II

Geerhardus Vos set his mark upon the Reformed tradition when he was invited to teach at Princeton seminary. In a (monumental) inaugural address, Vos prepared the seminary (and scholastic world) for a flavor of Reformed Biblical Theology. Teaching for nearly 40 years at Princeton, Vos left a legacy (all too ignored these days) on Biblical Theology as a theological science.
So what was this legacy? Vos contributed much to the Biblical Theology discussion of his days, especially through the writing of several books. Most notably is his work Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Reading through even the first couple of chapters, one learns quickly to appreciate Vos for several reasons:
1) He was an academic. He shows his thorough understanding of his times and works (especially the works of Wellhausen &c.) as well as a solid grounding in the Reformed tradition.
2) He “emancipates” as it were, Biblical Theology as a theological science for the school of criticism. Showing the weaknesses of the critic’s presuppositions, Vos not only diabolically opposes them, but he sets up a view that, at the very least, competes and undermines Biblical scholasticism in the field of Biblical Theology over the last century.
3) Vos’ aim (found in his inaugural address as well) is not only pointedly academic, but it is also largely practical – aimed at showing the glory of God as He has progressively revealed Himself in redemptive history.
4) What his study of Biblical Theology did, was show the place for Dogmatic (Systematic) Theology among the theological disciplines, but in a sense, he also wed together these two (opposing) disciplines.
5) One element of Vos’ thought that, perhaps, trumps above the rest, is that Vos showed people how to read their Bibles. Maintaining both unity and diversity within the covenant of grace, Vos gives people a methodology of reading Scripture as a “Divine Drama” of God’s self-revelation. Included in this, is Vos’ emphasis of eschatology; and understanding history through an eschatological lens.
Much more could, and should, be said about what Vos contributed to the discussion of Biblical Theology, but this will suffice for the present. Being thus appreciated, there are also several criticisms that not to be misplaced when discussion Vos’ view of Biblical Theology:
1) Contrary to some of Vos’ theological children, Vos was not working within a vacuum. Though Biblical Theology may have gained the notoriety and “science” from Vos, Vos relied heavily on the works of those who had been doing Covenant Theology for the previous three-hundred years.
2) Vos’ Biblical Theology of the Old and the New Testaments, is, unfortunately, an unfinished work. It is not as complete as a serious student of Biblical Theology would hope.
3) Throughout Vos’ work, much of his criticism is geared towards the Biblical critics – which reflects that Vos was a man of his time. Some of his writing seems a bit antiquated and out-of-date. However, it should here be noted as well, that such criticisms are largely appreciated and the Reformed thinker can, perhaps, attribute the triumph of the Gospel over Biblical criticism in part to Vos’ work.
4) There are other times, where Vos seems to have grown and developed his thought between his inaugural address and the publishing of Biblical Theology. There are certain areas where one is prone to agree more with him in his inaugural address than in his magnum opus (i.e. covenants, the protoevangelium, etc.).
5) Vos seems too driven and confined by a narrow definition of “covenant” that he doesn’t deal in any large degree with the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, or the Davidic Covenant. He also seems to too narrowly define a covenant dealing with redemption, that the Noahic covenant, because its sign is a rainbow, is not redemptive.
What I hope to trace out in subsequent posts, is the methodology of Vos’ Biblical Theology and how this helped to reclaim Biblical Theology from