If we do not accept the symbolic truth of the Exodus account, then the propositional truths in the Bible diminish in potency. If the Bible student does not understand that the Exodus is the redemptive story of the Old Testament, then how can the Bible student understand the significance of redemptive story of Christ in the New Testament? If the Bible student cannot understand the typology of Moses, how can the Bible student appreciate the greater Moses? If the Bible student does not understand the narrative of the Exodus, there is little chance to understanding the Book of Hebrews.

Revelation is generally divided into two categories, general and special. Special revelation is revelation revealed through the writers of the Bible; general being the revealed truth of God through nature.

Within special revelation, a distinction should be made between propositional truth and narrative truth. Propositional truth is akin to the didactic truths written by Paul in his Epistles. Reformed people and evangelicals broadly are drawn to propositional statements in the Bible. They lend themselves to tweets, bumper stickers, catch phrases. John 3:16 is the paradigmatic example. However, large swaths of Scripture are not written propositionally.

RC Sproul called a certain hermeneutic relating to this appeal to catch phrase Christianity “lucky dipping.” In his example of lucky dipping, a Bible student opens the Bible and reads “Then he went off and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5) The hypothetical Bible student then flips to another page of Scripture and reads “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37) Adopting a “lucky dipping” hermeneutic is not advisable. To understand Scripture, it is necessary to understand the metanarrative of the Bible.

In the history of special revelation, Paul and his didactic style comes at the end of special revelation as a kind of capstone to Moses, the prophets, and the writers of the New Testament. To be sure, there are didactic texts in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, but the point is that the most distilled didactic teaching is with Paul because he has the benefit of looking back at the Messianic fulfillments of Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost.

Accordingly, Christians are left with what to do about narrative. For most of the church, the approach appears to be to ignore it. However, ignoring the metanarrative of Scripture comes at a cost of distorting the propositional truth that the church embraces today and reducing the Christian faith to the affirmation of particular propositional truths instead of an embodied reliance on the person of Christ.

In George Sayour’s article Jordan Peterson and Christianity critiquing Peterson, we have examples of both of the failings described above with the loss of narrative truth. He states, “It is Jung’s archetypes that forms the basis for Peterson’s insights (some of them very good) and classes on Genesis and Exodus.  This spiritualizing of the text yet denying its historicity is nothing knew [sic] either.  Furthermore, he has consistently held out that the Bible is true even if it is not true historically.”

Sayour makes several fair observations critiquing Dr. Peterson’s understanding of the Trinity, the natures of Christ, and the historicity of Genesis and Exodus. However, one problem with Sayour’s article is that, while the historicity of Genesis and Exodus should be affirmed as a matter of orthodoxy, it does not then follow that Peterson’s assertions of the symbolic truth of Genesis and Exodus should be denied. Sayour does not say in the article definitively whether he denies the symbolic truth of the Genesis and Exodus account that Dr. Peterson discusses; however, he also does not affirm the truth of the symbology of Genesis and Exodus. Symbology which Dr. Peterson extensively discusses in his Biblical lectures.

Both aspects, the propositional and the symbolic truth, should be affirmed. The reason why millions of viewers watch Peterson in his Genesis and Exodus lectures is because he has gleaned behind where the church has left truth in the field. Peterson takes the Bible seriously and expounds on truths about the Bible in the same way Plato and the ancient Greek philosophers illuminated important truths. Where intellectuals have spoken truthfully, the church should affirm those statements – especially in those areas where the church has failed to maintain a consistent witness.

Perhaps the church is tempered in engagement of the narrative by a desire to avoid the type of modernist liberalism that the forebearers in the faith fought (e.g., Machen). Symbolism in Scripture is subjective. The church today dislikes subjectivism in part because it lives in postmodern subjectivism culture. So for conservative Christians, best to play it safe and say nothing about narrative which is subjective. However, even during the throes of fights with modernists, Reformed theologians did not distance themselves from understanding special revelation symbolically. The best example is Geerhardus Vos in his book Biblical Theology. The discipline of Biblical theology (better styled, the history of special revelation) engages the narrative in Scripture from the ontological perspective and maps the process of God revealing himself to a people he ultimately redeems.

If we do not accept the symbolic truth of the Exodus account, then the propositional truths in the Bible diminish in potency. If the Bible student does not understand that the Exodus is the redemptive story of the Old Testament, then how can the Bible student understand the significance of redemptive story of Christ in the New Testament? If the Bible student cannot understand the typology of Moses, how can the Bible student appreciate the greater Moses? If the Bible student does not understand the narrative of the Exodus, there is little chance to understanding the Book of Hebrews.

Note that the symbolic truth and the propositional truths in Scripture are not conflicting, but rather complimentary. Moses was a real man who lived in history, and simultaneously Moses is a picture of Jesus Christ. These truths are not inconsistent.

As for the second cost of ignoring narrative truth which reduces truth to abstract disembodied affirmations, Sayour states “To the Christian, Jesus Christ is not an example of one who attained the Logos through his suffering and obedience, but rather He IS the Divine Logos from the beginning of all time.” First, it is true that Jesus always existed and was never created; however, Jesus is also perfected through suffering (Hebrews 2:10). Does this perfection mean that he was not morally pure and righteous from before all time? No, it means that in order to fulfill his role as High Priest, Jesus had to suffer to identify with the people which he was saving and also to atone for the people he was saving (Hebrews 2:17).

If the church does not understand the centrality of the suffering obedience of Christ, it will not understand the imitation of Christ. Christians must connect the narrative of their suffering with the ultimate suffering of Christ. If the church fails to comprehend these matters, it will be left as an empty shell-like figure of orthodox shibboleths and catch phrases. The call of the Christian is to suffer for Christ’s sake; not to act as the keeper of dead truths.

Perhaps this misunderstanding explains why today the church in America has diminished influence on culture and politics. The disembodied affirmations lead to perspectives like ‘Christianity is simply the formula of justification and saving souls. When the barbarians make me recite that Jesus is not Lord or affirm a salvation of works, then God is interested in my cultural engagement.’ However, holding to the full truth of Scripture – both narrative and didactic – leads to a life of obedience and ultimately suffering mirroring that of Christ Jesus. Christ’s claim on the Christian life is without limit. By grappling with the narrative of the Bible, Christians will be transformed and will find that their suffering in Christ has meaning. Dr. Peterson frequently observes the relationship between suffering and meaning, and if Dr. Peterson added the words “in Christ” to his comments, he would have a fuller description of that relationship.

All speakers have wheat and chaff in their statements, and Christians should diligently search the Scriptures to discern speakers’ truth claims. That said, Dr. Peterson has recovered the redemptive narrative that the church has forgotten or neglected. This redemptive narrative, when combined with orthodox systematic theology, has the potential for breathing fresh life into enduring truth.

John Westercamp a member of Southside Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana