Objective⤒🔗

How should we use Scripture in our ethical reflections? A minister will regularly be faced with this question. He knows that there is not always a simple answer in Scripture to questions regarding what is allowed and what is not. Catechism students can already ask him difficult questions about various issues. He will also note that there are differences within his congregation when it comes to expressions of a Christian lifestyle. What one person approves of, another disapproves of. Does this mean that what we may classify as “Christian” is not always so clearly understood from Scripture?

I would like to make two preliminary remarks. In the first place, my starting point is that Scripture is the source and canon (rule) for our Christian actions. What we are now dealing with is the question of how this canon should function as a standard. We will need to distinguish between the authority of Scripture and the legitimacy of our appeal to Scripture in moral matters.¹

In the second place, I have dealt with this matter earlier in Voorbeeld of gebod? [Example or commandment?],² but this was mainly in a polemical sense vis-à-vis H.M. Kuitert. In this essay I will attempt to express myself in a more thetical (establishing a thesis, as opposed to antithetical) manner. I will also make a few corrections to what I wrote at the time.

In this article I want to make it clear that Scripture functions in more than one way in reflecting on our actions. I distinguish four ways: a) Scripture as a guide; b) Scripture as a watchman; c) as a compass; d) as a source of examples. We will also have to reflect on the relationship between Holy Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is our guide←⤒🔗

When I am speaking about using Scripture as a guide, this means that in many cases the use of Scripture is very straightforward and can be clear to anyone. Just as a guide serves as a clear signpost in a mountainous landscape, so we also know from Scripture what we – all of us – should or should not be doing in various situations. The command to love our neighbour and the prohibition against killing, stealing or deceiving him, like many other commandments and prohibitions, can be supported directly by Scripture. There is no objection to speaking of loca probantia (proof texts) in ethics, just as is done in dogmatics.

However much effort it may cost ourselves to not be angry with our brother (Matthew 5:22), to be kind to our adversary (5:25), not to look at a woman lustfully (5:28) and to love our enemy (5:44-48) – this difficulty does not lie in the vagueness or ambiguity of God’s (Christ’s) will, but in ourselves. A simple appeal to the Decalogue, quoting wisdom from the Proverbs or a word of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount can be sufficient. Anyone who exaggerates the effort of this makes it impossible to believe what Psalm 119:105 says: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”

We should not allow ourselves to be charmed by the aversion that many theologians show when “laws,” “commandments,” “general rules” are concerned. K. Barth even claims that God’s commandment is “immer Einzelgebot für das Handeln dieses Menschen in diesem Augenblick in dieser Situation, Vorschrift für diesen, für seinen Fall.”³ For him, the divine commandment is always a “mandatum concretissimum.”⁴ Such a situational application naturally makes it impossible to appeal to loca probantia that apply to everyone at all times.

One may wonder how someone like K. Barth continually refers to Scripture in the ethical parts of his Kirchliche Dogmatik. I will now ignore this⁵ and simply note that in many cases Barth knows how to say accurately in his ethics what God’s commandment is for everyone. He does state the “mandatum concretissimum,” yet I do not see why in many cases it could not as well be called a “mandatum generalissimum.”

When I am saying that we can often simply refer to Scripture, this does not apply that I endorse any biblicist approach. With this I mean that form of appeal to Scripture that uses Bible texts in an atomistic way, taking them out of their direct context, or also out of the total context of Scripture.

The total context requires a reading of Scripture in a Christian manner: that is, with Jesus Christ as its centre. Thus, the fulfillment of the law in Christ (Matthew 5:17-48) makes it impossible for us to apply the Mosaic law for today and to discover in this law a guide for our lives. The word “fulfill” means something different than “to confirm,” in the sense of “Just as the law of God was for Israel, so it remains for us.”⁶

The word “plērō” means that Jesus is about to complete, to finish the law and the prophets, which are not satisfied or executed as yet. And this fulfillment means a great change. Because the law was fulfilled in Christ, the Old Testament form of worship with its many regulations became obsolete.

“Fulfillment” means that Jesus brings the completing, concluding revelation. Particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, he shows how far-reaching the Old Testament commands actually are. Whereas not an iota or dot of the law will perish, this means that the law must be taken seriously to its core. Jesus did not abolish the law, but he made it transparent to the core. No-murder and no-adultery mean more than the letter indicates. Many iotas or dots of the law are lost when we invalidate the commandment “You shall not murder” by being angry with our brother and calling him an empty-head or a fool. Many iotas or dots are also lost when, after Christ’s teaching, we continue to base divorces on the legislation of Deuteronomy 24 and do not return to the situation at the very beginning (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:1-9). The spiritual reading of the Mosaic law therefore often rules out adhering to the letter, or just to the letter, of it.

 This applies not only to what we call the “ceremonial” laws, but also to the “civil” regulations of the Mosaic legislation. Calvin can note that all peoples are given the freedom to make laws that they see as beneficial, as long as these are in accordance with love. We may prefer laws to those in the Mosaic law, according to Calvin, because they better suit the situation of the time, place and people. He wittily notes that we will not abolish the Jewish law, because it was never passed on to us.⁷ The latter is already evident from the Old Testament itself. Yahweh gave his law to Israel and not to other nations (Psalm 147:19-20). He placed different commandments on the Israelite than on the non-Israelite who lived in Israel. Foreigners and children of them were allowed to be kept as slaves and remain someone’s hereditary property, something that was not possible with Israelite slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46; 47-55). Interest could not be asked from poor fellow citizens, but it could be charged from foreigners (Deuteronomy 23:19-20). The Israelites were not allowed to eat carrion, yet strangers within the gate were; it could also be sold to foreigners (Deuteronomy 14:21).

I would certainly need to go into this in more detail if I were writing for an American audience. The students and followers of R.J. Rushdoony, G.L. Bahnsen, G. North and others influence hundreds of thousands of believers in the United States and abroad with the teaching that the Mosaic law in its civil aspects (such as the death sentence, provisions about divorce, economic principles, and so on) should be reinstated as law. This would be the only way to get the world out of the doldrums and move towards a thousand-year kingdom of peace (according to the post-millennial view). What Calvin wrote about the freedom of the nations to make their own laws is characterized as “heretical nonsense” by Rushdoony.⁸

He wants to realize the (political) guide for today in the Mosaic civil legislation, without reading it spiritually—that is, Christianly.

I will limit myself here in my criticism to the remark that this position takes us back to a situation prior to the fulfillment of the law by Christ. It makes Golgotha into a second Sinai and Christ into a second Moses.⁹

Moreover, it is striking that the ethical reflection in the school of Rushdoony et al focuses on the restoration of the world rather than on the building up of the church of Christ, as the New Testament does.

For us, who find the message about Jesus Christ in Scripture, it is important to use Scripture in a redemptive-historical and Christ-centered way, not only when we preach about historical material from the Old Testament, but also when we reflect on the Mosaic laws. We are to understand these laws spiritually: that is, in the Spirit of Christ. If we would do so, we will also be more careful with comments (I myself have also made them) about the “actuality” of the Mosaic Law: for example, in a modern concern such as the environmental problem. Paul could say, when he quoted Deuteronomy 25:4, “Does God concern himself with oxen?”(1 Corinthians 9:9). We might say, “Is Moses concerned about the environment?” This means that the environmental question remains important, but any direct appeal to the Mosaic legislation for this subject (for example, the appeal to texts about the Sabbath and Year of Jubilee) is a misguided appeal. And it is this direct appeal that concerns me when I qualify Scripture as a guide.

Scripture as a watchman←⤒🔗

There are also situations in which a direct Scripture appeal to texts, as I indicated above, is not possible. The moral climate in both the Old and New Testaments is different from the one in which we are living. Men and women, parents and children, government and subjects interact differently than in biblical times. Fathers married off their daughters (1 Corinthians 7:36-38), which we would find strange today. In our time we consider slavery, which is limited in the Bible but not condemned, as a serious evil. Even good kings like David did not shy away from torture (2 Samuel 12:31), while we would consider it contrary to human rights, and so on Freedom of religion, or the right to change one’s religion, was unthinkable in Israel. A democratic form of government is nowhere commended in the Bible. What does Scriptural appeal mean in such situations?

We have seen that with regard to the Mosaic legislation, the redemptive-historical progress needed to be taken into account. But now I also have to take the “normal” historical progress into account. It is not enough to say “We’re living after Christ” and “We’re no longer Israel.” It should be added, “We live in the twentieth [or twenty-first] century.” Thus, anyone who takes the development and improvements of legal legislation, the rise of human rights, and the impact of democracy seriously, may therefore no longer wish to return to Israel’s civil laws. Anyone who wishes to do so not only wants to return to the situation before the fulfillment in Christ, but he also forgets that two thousand years of history have passed since Christ’s presence on earth. Such developments towards better justice, better forms of government, and so on, are not in line with Scripture, which nowhere calls for the changes mentioned above. They are an extension of history, which sooner or later brings poignant contradictions to mind with irresistible force and then propels, either violently or otherwise, towards the overhaul of outdated structures. This is what happened with persecution on account of religion, with slavery, child labour and colonialism.

Anyone who takes this into account will find it difficult to suffice with a “redemptive-historical model,” with which (for example) W.H. Velema seeks to solve the challenges with the Scripture appeal.¹⁰ For me as well the redemptive-historical aspect is very important (see above), but it is not sufficient. We need to take into account not only redemptive-historical developments, but also historical developments. All kinds of Christian but also non-Christian influences have played a role in changes of awareness that have led to enormous changes in human society. We all deem the correctness of various changes evident sooner or later, without being able to point to biblical evidence for this.

But how do I know whether obvious developments that force themselves on us with irresistible force are good and proper? In that “forcing” or “imposing,” we may sense the work of God and his Spirit. We know God from the special revelation in the Holy Scriptures; but we also know him as he reveals himself in creation and in the history of the world. In many situations, knowing the Scriptures is not enough to form our ethical judgment. We also need to know history so that we can notice God’s general revelation.

When we speak of “evidence,” then this does not mean to us an autonomous human evidence. We do not consider something to be evidently good or right just because it is the consequence of humanity’s process of development. What current surveys reveal as the majority position (for example, with regard to induced abortion or euthanasia) is not evidently “good.” It is about having good insight and good actions that force themselves upon us, while we can relate it to God’s long-suffering guidance of history to curb evil and to remove abuses.

But can we not be wrong about such things? Didn’t the “Deutsche Christen” [the German Christians] also say that the will of God could be read from the arrival of Hitler as leader? Was that not a clear “imposition” of God’s revelation for them? Using this example I can make it clear that the Holy Scripture also serves as a watchman. It is not merely a guide or signpost, showing us exactly the way we need to go in a landscape. Scripture is also a watchman warning us when God is despised and people are oppressed. Scripture is not a handbook for political and economic developments. Moses or any other Old Testament prophets do not provide us with building blocks for this construct. But they are therefore not without significance for politics and economics. After all, the negative aspect is also important. Prophets in the Old Testament exposed abuses because God was not being honoured and people were not respected. The “Deutsche Christen” referred to God’s general revelation, yet failed to recognize that Hitler’s actions with his National-Socialist ideology and his persecution of Jews were clearly in conflict with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture does not always say what is right hic et nunc (here and now), but it does give us eyes to see what is hic et nunc wrong and evil.

Scripture as a compass←⤒🔗

There are also situations in which Scripture does not so much help us as a guide or as a watchman, but provides us with orientation. In such instances it is not a guide telling us what is good or evil in concrete terms, but rather a compass indicating the direction in which we should move to find the answer to the question of what is good or evil in concrete terms. Take for instance the new issues that arise from innovations such as DNA research and in-vitro fertilization. It is claimed that Christian ethics can no longer provide an answer to such questions at all. That would be rather concerning, because I am convinced that the minister will increasingly have to deal with issues in the biomedical field. How does he include and apply Scripture in this? Of course, Scripture says nothing about DNA, in-vitro fertilization, etc. DNA ethics can only exist after a DNA discovery. But although there is no specific text that has anything to do with developments regarding the human chain of genetic information, there are general biblical themes that can be related to the recent discoveries. Such themes as respect for every new human life, for marriage as a monogamous institution, for man who is created according to “his own nature,” are topical today when someone thinks about in-vitro fertilization and genetic transplantation. We are dealing here with constant factors that remain valid for all ages and remain applicable to the most advanced scientific developments.

Recognizing the difficulty in pinpointing exactly where man’s stewardship turns into hubris to be like God, we need to continually ask ourselves whether it is the will of God, who makes us stewards and not creators, when we continue our research and its applications in one direction or another.

This also implicitly indicates that we have to use our reason, our understanding, in addition to the Scriptures, in order to determine what is good. We may call Scripture the only guide in our ethical reflection, but it is not the only source for our knowledge. We need to know our own situation and use our own reasoning and that of others to make the right decisions. Calvin distinguishes between the ratio ingenita (positive; naturally inherent in all people), the ratio vitiosa (destructive; the result of man’s depravity) and the tertia ratio (which is guided by God’s Word and Spirit).¹¹ The ratio ingenita is able to bring humanity to proper insights and good actions in all kinds of matters, even without knowledge of the Scriptures. Calvin and others have explained this possibility on the basis of the providentia Dei (providence of God) and the gifts that the Spirit distributes among people.¹² That is why “common sense” can be of great importance for all kinds of ethical decisions. At the same time, however, the Christian, with his tertia ratio, will let Scripture speak as a guide and as a compass. We then reject views that “impose” themselves on others as obvious, as well as modern scientific developments, insofar as they are clearly at odds with what may be asked of man as a steward of God’s creation.

Scripture provides examples←⤒🔗

When we use Scripture as pointing us in the right direction, we will notice that the right direction is often shown in the example set by others. We are to follow in the footsteps of the saints from the Old and New Testament and imitate them (Luke 4:25-27; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Philippians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; Hebrews 6:12; 11-12:1; James 5:17).¹³ The great example is of course Christ himself (Matthew 16:24; 19:21; John 13:15; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Peter 2:21).

If we were to use Scripture only in the above-mentioned sense of guide, watchman and compass, we would be doing a great disservice to its significance for our actions. After all, Scripture is more than a book from which we might draw texts to substantiate the pro or con of certain actions. It is the book of the covenant between God and people and gives us the history of God’s redemption of people through Christ. It shows us how we enter the church of God and share in Christ through faith. In this community of faith the ethos is born. When we are told the account of Christ and of all who have followed him, this will move us to faith and action. “But that is not the way you learned Christ!” (Ephesians 4:20).

The importance of the example is evident from the fact that the apostles do more than repeat what is “written.” In cases where a simple appeal to, for example, the Decalogue would have been clear, they point to our life “in Christ.” One thing can also go together with another. Paul points to the fifth Commandment in Ephesians 6:2-3; but he does not start with it. The first thing he says (Ephesians 6:1) is “Children, obey your parents in the Lord (Jesus)”. The motive here, as in many other situations, is the imitation of Christ. The Christian is to walk differently from the pagan, not (only) because the Ten Commandments require this of him, but because he has come to know Christ (Ephesians 4:20). He must be willing to forgive, as God in Christ has forgiven him (4:32). He is to test what is pleasing to the Lord (5:10). In their marriage, husband and wife are to reflect the relationship between Christ and his church (5:22-33). Christians are to avoid fornication because their bodies are members of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-20), and so on.

We can therefore even say that Scripture as a guide, as a watchman and as a compass is only used properly by those who seek to be in a living relationship with Christ and with his church. The example of Christ and of his followers calls us to be connected to the church as his body, to ask for the will of God in and with that community.

This is important, among other things, for our reflection on the Christian lifestyle. A simple appeal to Scripture texts is not always possible. Taking into account the example of the past and present generations on issues of proper Christian living is not conservative, but it shows respect for the community of the church in which we are not the first to know Christ or to read the Scriptures.

What should the minister be saying to his catechism students when it comes to dancing, going to the bar, the cinema and watching movies? He does not respond by quoting a number of texts. But whether it concerns sports, cards, drinking, smoking, going to the cinema, watching TV or something else, the decision about someone’s lifestyle and all kinds of concrete matters therein depends on the answer to the question “With Christ in mind, who am I? Who can and should I be?”

The example Christians give is not always worth imitating. Within the church of Christ differences of opinion will remain and along with this there will be variation in our actions. Sometimes the differences can be so serious that they cannot coexist, based on clear Scriptural statements. But this does not apply to all differences, and in those cases great caution is required. Then we cannot say to someone else, “This is how the Lord says and not otherwise,” or “This is how he wants you to act also and not otherwise.”

The testimony of the Holy Spirit←⤒🔗

From the foregoing we can conclude that the response to ethical questions cannot always be derived from Scripture in a simple or direct manner. We often have to search for what the will of God is. This was also already true in Biblical times. In the Old Testament the “way of the LORD” was not always clear to believers. On the one hand, the “way of the LORD” can point to the already known commandment: for example, in Deuteronomy 5:32-33; Psalm 18:22-24; 119:13-15, 30-32; Jeremiah 7:23. On the other hand, this expression may contain the question about the as yet unknown commandment, as it relates to the guidance of God in the life of man: for example,. Psalm 25:4, 12 (“Make me to know your ways, teach me your paths... Who is the man who fears the LORD? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose”); 27:11 and 86:11 (“Teach me your way, O LORD”).

We know from the New Testament that our lives are guided by the Holy Spirit. According to Christ’s promise, he will guide us into all the truth (John 16:13). He was given not only to the apostles, but also to the other members of Christ’s church (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

We should take into account the special position of the (inspired) apostles, but may still compare ourselves with them in seeking our own path. Through experience and practice our senses are sharpened to distinguish between good and evil (Hebrews 5:12-14). We need to properly discern and discover what is pleasing to the Lord (Ephesians 5:10). Love will be accompanied “with knowledge and all discernment” (Philippians 1:9).

Does the Holy Spirit also give us knowledge in addition to the knowledge that Holy Scripture provides for our ethical reflection? We cannot simply answer yes or no to this question. Anyone who simply says yYes” ends up with spiritualism. When someone is going to make it clear to others that he is following the will of the Holy Spirit, as he believes he understands it, they may ask him about the legitimacy of his assertion. And where else can it be found than in the Word of God, given to us all in Holy Scripture? Where someone appeals to the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we need to tell him that his conclusion goes against what the Scriptures require of a Christian, his appeal to the Spirit is incorrect. Every appeal to the Spirit may be judged according to the analogia fidei (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 14:29). Scripture always continues to function as a watchman and as a compass, where it does not expressly prescribe to us what we should be doing concretely and personally. Those who are truly led by the Holy Spirit cannot help but act in the spirit of Scripture. To this extent we must say that the Spirit works per verbum and not extra et praeter verbum (outside and beyond the word).

On the other hand, we cannot simply answer “No” to the question of whether the Holy Spirit comes with a message of his own. After all, this is about concrete decisions that we make without Scripture telling us what those decisions ought to be. Whoever asks, it will be given; he who seeks will find; to those who knock, it will be opened, because the Father will give us the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:9-10). Those who have to answer for themselves in times of persecution do not need to worry about what to say, because it is not he, but the Holy Spirit who will teach you what to say (Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12). To this extent we must say that the Spirit not only works per verbum (word for word), but also cum verbo (with the word).

The distinction between per verbum and cum verbo is known from dogmatics, and often indicates a difference between the reformed and the Lutherans. According to H. Bavinck, the reformed would commonly be of the understanding that the Holy Spirit is paired with the Word (cum verbo), while the Lutherans would strongly emphasize that the Spirit acts as an instrument through the Word (per verbum). Bavinck points out the distinction that the reformed people made between the ordinary and the extra-ordinary way in which God works grace in the heart, while the Lutherans, out of fear of the Anabaptists, increasingly omitted the extraordinary way and put all emphasis on the activity of the Holy Spirit exclusively through the Word.¹⁴

It may be doubted whether the distinction between the two approaches is really as clear as it is presented here. C.G. Berkouwer writes that the “cum verbo” and the “per verbum” occur on both sides. The “cum verbo” is necessary to indicate that it is not an automatic effect of the preaching and that the Word can only be accepted in faith through the power of the Spirit.¹⁵

The distinction is also important for ethics. It is used by K. Bockmühl, who is of the opinion that Calvin limits the work of the Holy Spirit too much after the period of prophets and apostles to a power or energy that enlightens Christians and motivates them to act, but which does not have any power to make their own pronouncement. According to Calvin, the speaking of the Spirit, as we know of it for example with regard to Simeon (Luke 2:26) and to Paul and Silas (Acts 16:6-9), no longer occurs today. Our actions would be determined by the commandment of Scripture and the providence of God in our profession, in the circumstances and in the course of our life. Thus, according to Bockmühl’s summary of Calvin’s position, the Holy Spirit would guide us through “Schrift und Schicksal” (Word and Destiny/Fate). Unlike Calvin, Bockmühl does not want to limit the testimonium internum of the Holy Spirit to a power that opens our eyes to Scripture, sets our hearts on fire and motivates us. The testimony of the Holy Spirit can also have its own content.¹⁶ 


Also after the unique apostolic period, it is legitimate to talk about the testimonium internum, which in my opinion is more than a “power” or energy that opens the Scriptures for us. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the Scriptures, but also to the path of life we have to follow. The latter does not automatically flow from the former. The greater thing is that we may know ourselves to be guided in a specific way by the Holy Spirit when we do certain things and omit others.

This is especially true in what has been called the “Differentialethik”:¹⁷ that is, the individuation of God’s will for our personal lives. What does God want with my life? What profession or career should I choose? Should I get married, and if so, to whom? How should I conduct myself in the midst of the church of Christ? What is my task in the world? In a life of faith and prayer it is not odd to speak of a personal special guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Let me give an example of the very personal and concrete guidance of the Holy Spirit: At the confirmation of marriage in the church we dare to say in our prayer that God has brought the bride and groom together and called them to marriage. We do not only conclude this “calling” from the fact that two people have just been married at the town hall and therefore must have been called to marriage by God. We believe that the two people knew that they were called by God (possibly after a lot of back-and-forth) and that is why they got married. They must have received an answer from above for this, although it is no longer the case as it was with Simeon or Paul, who heard voices. But when we believe in the answer to prayers, we also believe in an answer, with or without words. Also with words: for example, in situations like that of Mark 13:11, when it is not the believer but the Holy Spirit himself who is speaking for the believer in court.

However, is it possible that we can be wrong about the Holy Spirit’s leading in our lives? Someone might claim to be called by God for a certain task, when in reality this appears not to be the case. This calls for caution when we appeal to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and especially when we present this testimony to others as the will of God. What Bockmühl says along with Calvin is permanently valid: that what is needed is the coming together, the congruence or the consonance of two voices: the Spirit and Scripture. Everything new may be tested against the standard of analogia fidei, here the analogia praecepti. We do not go wrong when one is convinced for oneself that the Holy Spirit wants this or that in one’s own life, but things go awry when one also wants to impose on others that the Spirit wants this or that from them, without actual proof from Scripture. The Holy Spirit can indeed show us new ways, but they will always need to be in harmony with –and not against– the Word of God as we have it in Scripture.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

When we add the fourth aspect to the three others, it may be clear that the appeal to Scripture is not about the dilemma of “example or commandment.” I therefore also make a correction to the title of an earlier publication that I wrote earlier against an essay by Kuitert about the appeal to Scripture. We learn about God’s commandment in different ways, by using Scripture as a guide, as a watchman or guard, as a compass pointing in certain directions, but also by using its examples. Such examples aim to teach us what the commandment of God means as it comes to us in the imitation of Christ and his saints.

Scripture clearly presents us with the command of God as we face it today. I defended that in the aforementioned booklet Example or commandment? I will defend that again here, but now in a more nuanced manner. In the meantime, the distance to Kuitert has become even greater than it was at the time. An appeal to Scripture in ethics has become a completely secondary issue for the theologian Kuitert. According to him, ethics will do just fine without any appeal to Scripture. In 1981 Kuitert wrote, “The Bible is not there for morals, but for the story.”¹⁸

What I have written above can be summarized against the background of this often-quoted sentence by Kuitert: The Bible is indeed there for morality: as a guide, a guard, a compass, and with its examples — which aim to urge us to imitate Christ.

Of course, the Bible is also there for the story. In fact, it is primarily about the story: that is, the great narrative of God’s dealing with fallen humanity. It is indeed true that the Bible is indeed not a book of commandments, as if that is the end of it. It is the living Word of God that tells the account of redemption through Christ. Only it is not a story-without-a-moral. For when we are told the account of Christ and of all those whom he has drawn along in his wake, we are moved to faith and action: You are entirely different because “you learned Christ!” (Ephesians 4:20). Scripture and its account is indeed authoritative in ethical matters.

In this way, the question of “the minister and the appeal to Scripture” certainly also becomes a question about the way in which he will present the example of Christ and his imitation to young and old in the church. Does he portray Jesus Christ for the members of his church (Galatians 3:1)? E.L. Smelik once reframed a phrase from Kant this way: “Preaching without ethics is empty; ethics without preaching is blind.”¹⁹ Indeed, appeals for a Christian walk of life are in vain when the Word is not proclaimed.