In my most recent post I was recommending an approach to sermon applications from biblical narratives which avoids both simply drawing out moral examples and just preaching biblical-theological points which can feel pretty same-y across lots of different narratives.  In this post I want to suggest one possible underlying theological reason why well trained expository preachers in our context are often nervous of moving from preaching the biblical-theological point, e.g. David is a type of Christ winning the victory for us  -  to also preaching David as a positive example for the believer to follow, e.g. David as a model of faithful action when the honour of God is maligned.

My suggestion goes like this:  these two strands of application follow from different aspects of God’s act of salvation in Christ.  The ‘biblical-theological’ application is an outworking of Christ’s substitutionary work:  he died on the cross in our place, doing what we could never do for ourselves.  Hence in seeking to apply 1 Samuel ch.17 we look for what is unique about David in his action on behalf of Israel.

On the other hand, the ‘moral example’ strand of application is an outworking of Christ’s representative work, in particular in the union of the believer with him:  we were united with him in his death and raised to new life with him.  A key consequence of this is that the believer ought to be growing in Christlikeness, obedient as he was, self-sacrificial as he was.  Hence in seeking to apply 1 Samuel ch.17 we will look for what David, even in his function as a type of Christ, shares in common with faithful Christian believers.

My hunch is that some conservative evangelical preachers who have (rightly) drawn deeply on such books as Goldsworthy’s Gospel and Kingdom are nervous about this second kind of ‘moral example’ application because we have tended to be much less familiar in our piety and preaching with Christ’s representative work than with his substitutionary work.

Maybe this puts it more simply:  theologically, we should preach (e.g.) David as a unique type of Christ because of what Christ has done for us that we could never do for ourselves.  And we should also preach David as an example for the believer because in his role as a type of Christ he demonstrates some of the Christlikeness that we, in our union with Christ, ought to be growing in.

Or even more simply:  we’re not David, and also (from another perspective) we are David.  The former is what prevents the latter being the dreaded ‘pure moralism’;  the latter is what prevents the former from making all the richness of scriptural narrative seem essentially pointless.  Such is the mystery of God’s saving action for us in Christ, and therefore such can be the richness of biblical application to those who are in Christ.