{"id":26174,"date":"2025-10-13T06:30:47","date_gmt":"2025-10-13T10:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=26174"},"modified":"2025-10-14T07:05:43","modified_gmt":"2025-10-14T11:05:43","slug":"geerhardus-vos-the-recovery-of-biblical-theology-from-its-corruptors-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/geerhardus-vos-the-recovery-of-biblical-theology-from-its-corruptors-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Geerhardus Vos: The Recovery of Biblical Theology from Its Corruptors (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Geerhardus Vos was born in Heerenveen, the Netherlands, on March 14, 1862, to German parents who had emigrated to the Netherlands, where his father, Jan Hendrick Vos, pastored a Dutch Reformed church. His family emigrated to America in 1881 when his father accepted a call from a Christian Reformed Church congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Geerhardus Vos received theological education from multiple institutions: the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church (1881\u20131883), Princeton Seminary (1884\u20131885), and European universities, first at Berlin and then at Strassburg, where he completed his doctoral studies.[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During his European studies, Vos had significant contact with leading continental Reformed theologians, including Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. Despite an attractive offer to become the first professor of Old Testament at the newly established Free University in Amsterdam under Kuyper\u2019s leadership, Vos declined. Instead, he accepted a position at the Christian Reformed Church\u2019s Theological School in Grand Rapids (now Calvin Theological Seminary), where he taught for five years, beginning in 1888.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Move to Princeton<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 1892, Princeton Seminary established the Biblical Theology Chair. They did so in response to the discipline\u2019s expanding significance and impact on biblical scholarship, especially among nineteenth-century liberal scholars, and not because of theological work already being done at the seminary. Two factors support this observation: (1) while A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield held their own conception of Biblical Theology as a discipline, it was neither developed nor prominently featured in their theological methods; and (2) the discipline of Biblical Theology, which originated in rationalism and was dominated by nineteenth-century liberals, was being imported to the United States specifically to provide \u201ca more effective platform from which to disseminate Higher Criticism.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/sup> Indeed, just a year earlier in 1891, Union Seminary had created a Chair of Biblical Theology and hired the liberal Charles Briggs to fill it for this express purpose (Briggs would later go on trial for heresy). The Princetonians recognized the need to counteract this development of liberal biblical theologians by appointing Vos\u2014educated in Germany, conversant with Higher Criticism and Biblical Theology, yet an ardent evangelical believer\u2014to fill their own Chair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor William Henry Green, Vos\u2019s former Old Testament mentor, and B. B. Warfield were instrumental in bringing their former student to Princeton. Warfield recognized the need for a professor to teach Biblical Theology as a distinct discipline. He personally encouraged Vos to accept the invitation to Princeton after he had declined an earlier offer. The Charles Briggs heresy controversy at Union Seminary reached its climax at the 1893 Presbyterian General Assembly. As other seminaries went liberal, Princeton was quickly becoming the bastion for defending Reformed Orthodoxy in America, and so Green and Warfield were delighted that Vos joined the Princeton faculty. They believed that he could counter liberal trends in biblical scholarship with rigor, grounded in the authority and unity of Scripture\u2019s organic unfolding of redemptive revelation. His appointment proved significant for establishing Biblical Theology as a discipline of study in the Reformed tradition, and he occupied the chair for thirty-nine years until his retirement in 1932.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scholarly Contributions While at Princeton Seminary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Vos demonstrated remarkable scholarly breadth, contributing over a hundred penetrating book reviews to The Presbyterian and Reformed Review<\/em> and The Princeton Theological Review<\/em> from 1890 to 1919. His multilingual skills served him well in critically reviewing resources written in English, German, and Dutch. While he was developing his magisterial grasp of the redemptive-historical nature of God\u2019s revelation in Scripture, Vos\u2019s book reviews provide a helpful context for understanding how he perceived his work and what critical issues captured his attention. Perhaps because he was more at home working in the Old Testament, he vigorously opposed Old Testament Form Criticism but did not apply his perceptive ability to critiquing Form Criticism pertaining to New Testament studies. He also did not address the rising dialectical theology of Karl Barth. For reasons unexplained, Vos ceased contributing his insightful reviews in 1919. Sadly, Vos\u2019s work was generally neglected by his contemporaries, possibly due to his somewhat ponderous writing style. More than this, his numerous withering critiques of modern criticism prompted liberal contemporaries to dismiss his contributions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Formative Influences from Fellow Dutchmen<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Neither his exposure to Princeton traditions nor his Dutch contacts with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck adequately explain Vos\u2019s deep interest in the discipline of Biblical Theology. Vos was thoroughly conversant with both Bavinck and Kuyper, for he translated several of their works. Though it seems apparent that Bavinck and Kuyper influenced Vos\u2019s apologetic method, Richard Gaffin rightly suggests,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Vos\u2019s work in biblical theology is largely without direct antecedents and indicates the originality with which he wrestled with the matter of biblical interpretation in the Reformed tradition. It should also be emphasized, however, that he had a strong sense of his own place in that tradition and the thoroughly Reformed character of his work.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Doing Biblical Theology at Princeton<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When Vos arrived at Princeton Seminary in 1894 to occupy the Chair of Biblical Theology, he entered a discipline already characterized by four destructive features: (1) rationalistic opposition to supernaturalism, (2) the adoption of historical-critical methods, (3) radical literary criticism, and (4) the abandonment of orthodox views on biblical inspiration. The field had been decisively influenced by Johann P. Gabler\u2019s 1787 inaugural lecture at the University of Altdorf, which, sadly, established biblical theology as a purely historical discipline independent from dogmatic theology.[5]<\/a><\/sup> Against this backdrop, Vos undertook the monumental task of forging a truly evangelical Biblical Theology, maintaining the highest view of Scripture. Vos was not naive about the destructive forces. He demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of rationalism\u2019s influence and was perceptive in recognizing the emerging impact of evolutionary philosophy within Biblical Theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the close of his initial academic year as a professor at Princeton, Vos delivered his inaugural address at the First Presbyterian Church of Princeton: \u201cThe Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline<\/a>.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/sup> The final portion of his address proposes the crucial points to emphasize in the development of Biblical Theology within the curriculum at Princeton Seminary. His first three deserve emphasis: (1) The objective character<\/em> of God\u2019s revelation means the object of Biblical Theology is not the thoughts and reflections of humans, \u201cbut the oracles of God.\u201d (2) The historical nature<\/em> of the truth is not contrary to its revealed character<\/em> but always subordinate to it, because God employed the historical setting for the express purpose of revealing \u201cthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/sup> (3) Biblical Theology must establish itself firmly<\/em> \u201cupon the truthfulness of the Scriptures as a whole.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/sup> Both the record of God\u2019s redeeming deeds and the interpretive word of those acts by prophets and apostles must be accepted as the informing and infallible source of Biblical Theology. Vos carefully observed this agenda throughout his tenure at Princeton, as evidenced in his published Biblical Theology<\/em>, which represents his lecture notes and lifelong fulfillment of his inaugural vision.[9]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Biblical Theology? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the clearest ways to define Biblical Theology is to distinguish it from Systematic Theology, a distinction that Vos made early in his career at Princeton. Prior to assuming the chair at Princeton, Vos had, in fact, been a systematic theologian, and he continued to value the contribution of systematics in his life and work.[10]<\/a><\/sup> Vos argued that Biblical Theology considers \u201cboth the form and contents of revelation . . . as parts and products of a divine work,\u201d whereas in Systematic Theology \u201cthese same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work\u201d but \u201cas the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the difference between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology is largely one of structure. Systematics organizes the teaching of Scripture according to logical principles, so that the church can rightly understand all that Scripture teaches on a particular subject (e.g., Christology or gender and sexuality). To ask, \u201cWhat does the bible teach about x<\/em>?\u201d is to ask the question of Systematic Theology. Biblical Theology, by contrast, focuses on the progressive unfolding <\/em>of God\u2019s revelation. Scripture is a narrative unity, and God has revealed himself not simply by unveiling a set of logical principles, but over time as he unfolds his great plan of salvation in history<\/em>. Biblical Theology is thus the discipline most sensitive to the progressive unfolding of God\u2019s revelation of himself in Scripture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methodological Presuppositions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Vos began his work by mapping two realms of revelation. He built on two presuppositions: (1) that God has revealed himself in nature. Natural revelation occurs through the \u201cinner sense of man through the religious consciousness and the moral conscience\u201d and through God\u2019s external works in nature[12]<\/a><\/sup> and (2) that human knowledge of God is grounded in humans being made in God\u2019s image. The Bible \u201cnever assumes, even in regard to the heathen, that man must be taught the existence of God.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, sin\u2019s entrance disrupted natural revelation in two ways, both needing the Creator\u2019s redemptive correction: (1) natural revelation\u2019s structure became distressed, and (2) human religious and moral sense became dull and impaired, subjecting knowledge of God to \u201cerror and distortion.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/sup> Therefore, on its own, the natural mind cannot access the substance of revelation in the redemptive realm. Only supernatural redemption restores to the sinful human \u201cthe normalcy and efficiency of his cognition of God in the sphere of nature.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supernatural Revelation as Foundational<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For Vos, the biblical theologian\u2019s work was inextricably bound to the supernaturally revealed inerrant Word of God. He preferred designating his discipline \u201cHistory of Special Revelation\u201d instead of \u201cBiblical Theology,\u201d but conceded the difficulty of altering the established terminology.[16]<\/a><\/sup> The starting point for Biblical Theology \u201cconsists in the approbation of that supernatural process by which God has made Himself the object of our knowledge.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vos regarded his task to be eminently spiritual, requiring dependence<\/em> and believing<\/em> receptivity<\/em>, since Scripture represents the deposit of God\u2019s objective self-revelation as Redeemer. The human mind, enabled by new birth and divine illumination, can apprehend this deposit of truth, \u201cwhich is but the reflection in the regenerate consciousness of an objective world of divine acts and words.\u201d[18]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main Features and Tasks of Biblical Theology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Vos conceived of the \u201cHistory of Special Revelation,\u201d (his preferred designation for Biblical Theology) as consisting of two parts: (1) God as self-revealer, and (2) God as the author of Scripture. The formation of Scripture (God\u2019s words) functions as a means to an end\u2014the disclosure of God\u2019s acts. Biblical Theology\u2019s specific character lies in pondering both the form and the content of revelation from the perspective of God\u2019s revealing activity. It \u201cdeals with revelation in the active sense, as an act of God,\u201d seeking to understand, trace, and describe this act within human finite observation.[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vos made it clear that Biblical Theology is concerned with \u201cthe process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible,\u201d dealing with revelation \u201cas a divine activity, not as the finished product of that activity.\u201d[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a seminarian, I initially became acquainted with Geerhardus Vos through reading the works of Herman Ridderbos and Richard Gaffin.[21]<\/a><\/sup> As I did so, however, I came to realize that many who cherish the works of this trio of scholars had yielded to a subtle and specious shift, contrary to how Vos and Ridderbos, in particular, communicate the task of the discipline of Biblical Theology. Though Vos conceded acceptance of the designation, \u201cBiblical Theology,\u201d he reasonably contended that \u201cHistory of Special Revelation\u201d is a preferable title because it clearly and precisely expresses the task of the discipline.[22]<\/a><\/sup> Thus, he explained, \u201cBiblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity<\/em>.\u201d[23]<\/a><\/sup> Observe Vos\u2019s critical distinction. He distinguishes God\u2019s revelation\u2014\u201cthe organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity<\/em>\u201d\u2014from our human exposition of God\u2019s revelation, calling the latter \u201cexhibition.\u201d God\u2019s written Word concerning his revelatory deeds and words entails a progressively unfolding drama that Bible readers must track. Herman Ridderbos reinforces this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[W]e should attempt to discover the redemptive-historical categories that enable us to discern clearly the nature, the content, and then the inscripturated form of the New Testament, as well as the nature of its authority. And we must learn to do all this in the light of the New Testament itself and according to its own standards.[24]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thus, our doing of Biblical Theology must strive to trace<\/em> and represent<\/em> accurately the historical progression of the biblical storyline of redemption from foreshadowing promise to substantial fulfillment in Messiah Jesus (cf. Col. 2:17). The discipline\u2019s task and procedural method seek to trace and portray as closely as possible the contours and features of the divine progression<\/em> of revelation. Given this and Vos\u2019s preferred designation for the discipline (History of Special Revelation), a corrective caution is pertinent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Dangerous Distortion of Vos\u2019s Approach<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Without realizing it, many who welcome Vos\u2019s impact on their understanding of Scripture have displaced Biblical Theology from its proper domain of \u201credemptive-historical revelation<\/em>\u201d to an improper realm of \u201credemptive-historical hermeneutics<\/em>.\u201d Vos insists that \u201cBiblical Theology\u201d must be understood as the \u201cHistory of Special Revelation<\/em>,\u201d properly describing the \u201credemptive-historical\u201d nature of God\u2019s revealing<\/em> his redemptive deeds and words<\/em>. However, it is common to hear Vos\u2019s contemporary students use a misnomer, \u201credemptive-historical hermeneutics<\/em>.\u201d[25]<\/a><\/sup> We must avoid this sloppiness. \u201cRedemptive-historical\u201d is an adjectival phrase that describes God\u2019s giving of<\/em> revelation <\/em>(Scripture<\/em>), not<\/strong> our interpretation of revelation<\/em> (hermeneutics<\/em>). We must avoid transposing the descriptive phrase<\/em>, \u201credemptive-historical,\u201d concerning God\u2019s revelation, into a prescriptive phrase<\/em> concerning our interpretation of Scripture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why be concerned with this unwitting replacement of \u201credemptive-historical revelation<\/em>\u201d with \u201credemptive-historical hermeneutics,<\/em>\u201d also called a \u201cChristocentric hermeneutic\u201d? When pastors, biblical scholars, theologians, and students shift Vos\u2019s adjectival expression, \u201credemptive-historical,\u201d from describing God\u2019s word to their interpretation of Scripture, without realizing it, they ascribe to their interpretation of Scripture<\/em> an authority that properly belongs only to the giving of God\u2019s revelation<\/em>, God\u2019s revealed Word.[26]<\/a><\/sup> This invalid shift is consequential because it confuses and ignites interpretive disputes that lead to a theological standoff, especially with those who counter by insisting that Scripture requires their Dispensational \u201cliteral-grammatical-historical hermeneutic\u201d to unpack its meaning.[27]<\/a><\/sup> In other words, if \u201credemptive historical\u201d is a way that we <\/em>approach the text (rather than a characteristic of the text itself<\/em>), then it has no more right to claim legitimacy than any other kind of hermeneutic\u2014whether grammatical-historical or historical-critical or even allegorical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To speak of \u201credemptive-historical hermeneutics\u201d is a species akin to another improper expression, \u201ctypological interpretation\u201d or \u201cfigural reading.\u201d Just as \u201credemptive-historical\u201d properly describes the progressively unfolding Scriptures, not our hermeneutic, so we properly ascribe \u201ctypological\u201d or \u201cfigural\u201d to the nature of God\u2019s revelation, not to our interpretation of biblical types and figures.[28]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Geerhardus Vos is a giant in church history, a man rightly honored as the founder of evangelical Biblical Theology. He taught us that when we read the Bible, we need to acknowledge and account for its \u201credemptive-historical nature.\u201d Therefore, we should always read the Bible with a sensitivity to the historical progression of God\u2019s redemption through the several sequential biblical covenants and be prepared to be corrected by the Scriptures. Thus, we correctly affirm that the Scriptures entail the progressive unfolding of God\u2019s \u201credemptive-historical revelation\u201d concerning the Messiah. So, if we interpret the Scriptures properly, we trace<\/em> the \u201credemptive-historical\u201d contours of the storyline like a cartographer sketches a map. As no cartographer attributes to a map what belongs only to the sketched landmass, we must never assign to our representation of the unfolding mystery of God\u2019s redemptive-historical revelation<\/em>, which is always subject to adjustment, what belongs only to Scripture and not our interpretation of it. In so doing, we do what was most important to Vos: we rightly honor God as the author of Scripture and the one who reveals himself, and we receive that revelation with belief and dependence. In this way, we not only receive Scripture in all its narrative glory, but we receive God Himself\u2014<\/em>the one who, by his wondrous grace, has revealed himself to us in his word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Danny E. Olinger, \u201c<\/span>Geerhardus Vos: Education in America and Europe, 1881-1888<\/a>.\u201d <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

2. During his tenure at what would later be renamed Calvin Theological Seminary (1888\u20131893), Vos taught systematic theology. During this period, he wrote his recently translated <\/span>Reformed Dogmatics<\/em>, vols. 1\u20135, trans. and ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012\u201314). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

3. Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, <\/span>The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach<\/em> (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 358\u201359. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

4. Richard Gaffin, ed., <\/span>Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos<\/em>, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), xii\u2013xiii. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

5. Johann Philipp Gabler, \u201cAn Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each\u201d (1787), in <\/span>Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future<\/em>, ed. and trans. Ben C. Ollenburger (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 497\u2013506. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

6. Geerhardus Vos, \u201c<\/span>The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline<\/a>,\u201d in <\/span>Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation<\/em>, ed. Richard Gaffin, 3\u201324. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

7. Vos, \u201cThe Idea of Biblical Theology,\u201d 19. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

8. Vos, \u201cThe Idea of Biblical Theology,\u201d 20. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

9. Geerhardus Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

10. See Geerhardus Vos, <\/span>Reformed Dogmatics<\/em>, vols. 1\u20135, trans. And ed. By Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012\u201314). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

11. Hermann Ridderbos, <\/span>Redemptive History, <\/em>7. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

12. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology,<\/em> 19. Compare the recently translated Geerhardus Vos, <\/span>Natural Theology<\/em>, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

13. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 19. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

14. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 20. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

15. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 22. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

16. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, v, 14. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

17. Vos, \u201cThe Idea of Biblical Theology,\u201d 5. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

18. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 10. His assessment of all Biblical Theology done apart from belief is highly negative: \u201cIt was formerly considered a merit to have stressed the importance of tracing the truth historically, but when this was done with a lack of <\/span>fundamental piety<\/em> it lost the right of calling itself theology. The rationalistic brand of biblical Theology, at the same time that it stresses the historical, declares its product religiously worthless\u201d (<\/span>Biblical Theology, <\/em>10, emphasis added). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

19. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 7. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

20. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 5. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

21. Like me, many pastors and seminarians have become familiar by reading these two men, along with George Ladd. For more on George Ladd\u2019s writings and their relation to Geerhardus Vos\u2019s pioneering work in Biblical Theology, see Thomas R. Schreiner, \u201c<\/span>The World Turned Upside Down: George Ladd on the Kingdom<\/a>,\u201d <\/span>Christ Over All<\/em>, Nov. 11, 2024. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

22. Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 14. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

23. Vos, \u201cThe Idea of Biblical Theology,\u201d 15. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

24. Herman N. Ridderbos, <\/span>Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures<\/em>, trans. H. De Jongste, rev. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., 2<\/span>nd<\/sup> revised ed., (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1963), 50. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

25. \u201cWestminster Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics<\/a>,\u201d video by Westminster Theological Seminary. The video advertisement reads: \u201cScripture\u2019s the history of God\u2019s unfolding redemption. This means that the heartbeat of every passage, Old or New Testament, is Christ crucified and raised. At Westminster, God is the authority on how we interpret his Word. We call this redemptive historical hermeneutics.\u201d <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

26. For a fuller discussion of this confusion, see Ardel Caneday, \u201c<\/span>Scripture\u2019s \u2018Redemptive-Historical Character\u2019 and Biblical Interpretation (Part 3)<\/a>,\u201d <\/span>All Things Christian<\/em> (September 25, 2023). <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

27. See, for example, Abner Chou, \u201cA Hermeneutical Evaluation of the Christocentric Hermeneutic,\u201d <\/span>The Master\u2019s Seminary Journal<\/em> 27.2 (Fall 2016): 113\u201339. Advocates frequently substitute \u201cChristocentric hermeneutic\u201d for \u201credemptive-historical hermeneutic.\u201d <\/span>\u2191<\/a>

28. Regarding the mistake of treating typology as a species of hermeneutics rather than as a species of God\u2019s revelation, see Ardel Caneday, \u201cBiblical Types: Revelation Concealed in Plain Sight to be Disclosed\u2014’These Things Occurred Typologically to Them and Were Written Down for Our Admonition,\u2019\u201d <\/span>God\u2019s Glory Revealed in Christ: Essays on Biblical Theology in Honor of Thomas R. Schreiner<\/em>, eds. Denny Burk, James M. Hamilton, Jr., Brian J. Vickers (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic), 135\u201355; and Ardel Caneday, \u201cRevealed Forward: Figural Revelation of the Messiah\u2019s Suffering and Glory in Israel\u2019s Scripture according to Luke 24:13\u201335,\u201d <\/span>SBJT<\/em> 26.3 (2022): 30\u201348. My many publications in which I address biblical types have been significantly influenced by Vos, whose brilliant formulations I have endeavored to express with greater simplicity and clarity. See Vos, <\/span>Biblical Theology<\/em>, 144\u201348; and Vos, <\/span>The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956; Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1976), 49\u201387. <\/span>\u2191<\/a>
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every now and again God raises up a deliverer. Vos was one such man, and he delivered biblical theology from the clutches of those who would have poisoned it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":26178,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"Geerhardus Vos: The Recovery of Biblical Theology from Its Corruptors?","_seopress_titles_desc":"Every now and again God raises up a deliverer. Vos was one such man, and he delivered biblical theology from the clutches of those who would have poisoned it.","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"[]","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1976,38],"tags":[398,217,1360,925,674,528,2398,754,883,1857,122],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[25],"class_list":["post-26174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-october-2025","category-theme","tag-bible","tag-biblical-theology","tag-canon","tag-evangelicals","tag-geerhardus-vos","tag-hermeneutics","tag-history-of-interpretation","tag-postmodernism","tag-princeton","tag-redemptive-history","tag-theology"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Geerhardus-Vos-Ardel-Candeday-scaled.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:19:30","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":25,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"ardel-caneday","display_name":"Ardel Caneday","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/ardel-caneday.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/ardel-caneday.jpg"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"Caneday","first_name":"Ardel","church_site":"","user_url":"https:\/\/abcaneday.com","description":"Ardel Caneday<\/b> continues as an adjunct faculty member at University of Northwestern<\/a> after recently retiring from his role as Professor of New Testament & Greek. Ardel completed the MDiv and ThM at Grace Theological Seminary and the PhD in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is a founding teaching elder of Christ Bible Church (Roseville, MN). He co-edited with Matthew Barrett Four Views on the Historical Adam<\/i>, co-authored with Thomas R. Schreiner The Race Set Before Us<\/i>, and has published many articles in Christian magazines, journals, books, and online."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26174"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26435,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26174\/revisions\/26435"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26178"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26174"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=26174"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=26174"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=26174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}