John Murray on Systematic and Biblical Theology

/ davidsschrock

Writing on the relationship between systematic and biblical theology, John Murray writes with great balance, saying

Systematic theology is tied to exegesis.  It coordinates and synthesizes the whole witness of Scripture on the various topics with which it deals.  However, systematic theolgoy will fail of its task to the extent to which it discards its rootage in biblical theology as properly conceived and developed.  It might seem that an undue limitation is placed upon systematic theology by requiring that the exegesis with which it is so intimately concerned should be regulated by the principle of biblical theology.  And it might seem contrary to the canon so important to both exegesis and systematics, namely the analogy of Scripture.  These appearances do not correspond to reality.  The fact is that only when systematic theology is rooted in biblical theology does it exemplify its true function and achieve its purpose (John Murray, “Systematic Theology: Second Article,” WTJ 26, no. 1 (1963), 44-45).

Well said.

(HT: Brian Payne, from his doctoral dissertation, The Summing Up of All Things in Christ and the Restoration of Human Viceregency: Implications for Ecclesiology, SBTS 2008, p. 15)

Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

Michael Horton’s Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama is a book about theological method.  Unashamed of his Reformed heritage, the Westminster professor, draws on the redemptive-historical insights of John Calvin, Hermann Bavinck, Geerhardus Vos, and others, to speak to issues of post-modern literary theory and the narrative theology of George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, and Nicholas Wolterstorff.  As Kevin Vanhoozer puts it, “Messieurs Lindbeck and Wolterstorff, meet Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos!”  The result is an erudite and creative proposal that instructs Christians to conceive of the Bible as a Divine Drama.

In brief, Horton employs biblical theology and speech-act theory to show how this biblical drama–God’s acts of redemption and his interpretive revelation– should be the starting point for doing theology.  In this regard, Horton’s proposes an inductive method of doing theology.  Still, he relies on other theologians and philosophers to shape his thesis.  He depends heavily on Post-Reformational theologians and appropriates many of their redemptive-historical insights to combat and correct the modern philosophy and postmodern literary theory.  Yet, like Kevin Vanhoozer, Horton is adroit in gleaning from postmodern theories and philosophical instrumentation to better articulate what the Bible is doing.

The book is broken into two sections: “God Acts in History” (ch. 2-4) and “God Speech” (ch. 5-9); however, the contents of each chapter seem to move from one problem area to another.  In other words, instead of delineating a clear line of explanation, Horton responds to the problems and counter-proposals as he sets forth his case.  In this, he makes countless contributions to the subject of theological method; however, it is challenging to finish this book with a step-by-step program for ‘doing theology.’  Nevertheless, in the narrative of his book, there are four ideas that find repeated attention and that Horton sets out from the beginning.  They are a redemptive-historical method, an analogical mode (of discourse), a dramatic model, and a covenantal context.  We will consider these in turn.

First, Horton argues that we should read the Bible along redemptive-historical or biblical-theological lines.  Following the Dutch-American Reformed tradition, Horton conceives of biblical theology as an organically-connected development in biblical history–one that is laced with eschatological anticipation.  In this way, eschatology is not simply a systematic loci, but an interpretive lens.  Promise-fulfillment is the basic structure of the biblical narrative.  And the entire Bible itself takes on an escalating covenantal shape.

Horton contrasts the Platonic dualism that has lurked within the church from Augustine to Bultmann with the biblical, “two-age model”  which integrates history and eschatology.  Whereas the former sets up an unbiblical noumenal-phenomenal antithesis, the latter places eschatology within history and sees one age following another.  Jesus inaugurated the age to come with the ratification of the new covenant–the shedding of his blood on the cross– and his triumphant resurrection/ascension.  Today, we await the culmination when the King of Kings comes again.  Thus, according to Horton, we should read the Bible redemptive-historically.  I agree.

Second, Horton addresses the subject of biblical language.  Is it univocal, equivocal, or analogical?  He argues for the last of these three, and shows how and why proposals that turn away from analogical discourse result in aberrant doctrines.  For instance, in chapter two he shows the difficulty of fusing liberal, God-denying action in history with biblical & orthodox language (e.g. when Bultmann uses the language of resurrection, he is not speaking of physical, historical event).  Horton supplies four possible ways that the Bible and the world relate: (1) “mythological-symbolical-metaphorical” language where the God has spoken in his word but not in a way that comports with history, (2)  “communal interpretation of natural occurencce” where God acts providentially in history but does not provide sufficient interpretation of explanation, thus communities of faith are left to devise their own meaning, (3) “narrative interpretation” in which the Bible gives a plausible explanation of reality, but which may not in fact correspond to reality, and (4) “immanent interpretation” where belief is held that God lives, moves, and has his being in the world–this is a panentheist approach that blurs Creator and creation.

Horton lists all these to show the competing (and false) models in the church and academy today and to argue for a view of the Bible that recounts both God’s acts in history, as well as his covenantal speech found in Scripture.  God acts in his works and in his words, and Horton emphasizes that while the Bible only gives us analogical expressions of the God who acts and speaks, these analogical accomodations are true interpretations of God’s work of redemption.  He goes further though, asserting that Jesus Christ, the incarnate God, is in fact the univocal center of revelation, and that in him their is a univocal and irreducible core to the revelation of God in redemptive history.

Third, building on the redemptive-historical storyline and the way that God reveals himself through redemptive acts and inspiring nterpretive speech, Horton shows that this results in a divine drama where the world is a stage, the Bible a script, the people of God actors, and the covenantal structures (e.g. circumcision and the sacrificial system under the Mosaic administration; baptism and the Lord’s supper under the New Covenant) serve as visible props to reenact the drama.  This dramatic ideal is not held exclusively by Horton.  Hans von Balthasar developed it at length in his 5-volume Theo-Drama, and before that John Calvin even appealed to theatrical language.  More recently, Kevin Vanhoozer has appealed to this understanding in his The Drama of Doctrine. 

As with his emphasis on “two-world” model mentioned earlier, this historical progression of people and plot, which is sovereignly written and directed by God himself, overturns the static, platonic view of reality.  Instead of a purely vertical understanding of the platonic cosmology, with the earthly, material world somehow reflecting the timeless, immaterial noumenal worls, the Bible as Divine Drama puts the story on a horizontal axis that is moving from Creation to Consummation.  Simultaneously, the biblical drama casts God as the intervening hero who descends from heaven to earth to wisely, powerfully, and gloriously deliver his people–this is seen typologically in the OT and definitely in the NT with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Fourth, Horton develops this drama along the unifying theme of the biblical covenants.  He maintains that biblical canon itself is a covenantal document (a la Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority), and that the revelation of redemption contained therein reflects the gracious initiative of God to save a people for himself, a people who journey in this age as pilgrims but in the age to come as partakers of the Kingdom of God.  As Horton works out this proposal, he on more than one occasion emphasizes the necessity of a theology of the cross, over against a theology of glory.  The Christocentric reality is that the covenantal pattern of the Bible is that those who will enter into glory must travel the road of redemption as sojourners and sufferers (cf. Phil. 2:5-11).  He critiques any reading of Scripture that purports an overrealized eschatology, and he cautions those of us in covenant with Jesus Christ to realize that the cross comes before glory.

So overall, Horton’s proposal is compelling, even if it is hard to follow at points.  His argumentation is strong and his knowledge of biblical theology and postmodern philosophy is vast.  Furthermore, it is obvious that his intention is not to advocate a system of theology.  This is seen in the way that he answers objections from liberal theologians on his left and the way he challenges hyper-conservative theologians on his right.  He aims to traverse a narrow path between “experiential-expressivists”  who subvert the Bible to contemporary prejudices and “cognitive-propositionalists” who in the name of orthodoxy reduce the Bible to a series of eternal truths and miss the narrative, historical, and eschatological framework of the Bible. 

Similarly, Horton’s use of speech-act theory and double author discourse does not distort the text or run into the rocks of Tillich’s method of correlation.  Instead, Horton deftly employs philosophical language to articulate what the Bible is in fact doing.  This selective use of literary theory and philosophy, along with his repeated appeals to biblical theology, serves as a needed corrective against extreme liberalism and reductionistic biblicism.  Against both of these polarities, Horton is emphatic on the covenantal structure of the Bible, the way in which God has time and again redeemed a people for himself, something that the Divine Drama is continuing to do today.  Which leads to a final point.

Horton concludes his work with a chapter on the “Community Theater” where he suggests ways in which the twenty-first century church is called to perform the drama found in Scripture.  Appealing to the likes of Calvin, he shows how preaching the Word, performing the sacraments–his word, not mine, and effecting church discipline display for a watching world the Divine Drama.  Thus the church is to appropriate the speech and acts found in the biblical narrative, the language of the covenant, and to continue walking by faith in the redemption once for all accomplished in Christ and once for all delivered (read: spoken) to the saints.  While the objective work of redemption and revelation is completed, its local reenactment by the redeemed people of God will continue until the end of age.

On the whole, Horton’s book is an enriching proposal on how to do biblical and systematic theology.  It is not for the faint of heart, though.  It is a technical work that requires background knowledge of contemporary theology and Post-Reformation Reformed theology.   Simultaneously, it is a book that while written clearly could be structured better.  The book is generally organized by the four emphases consider here, but the execution of explaining these ideas is lacking.  Nevertheless, his main point of reading the Bible redemptive-historically, analogically, and covenantly comes through, and his model of a Divine Drama is one that helps unify the gap between theory and practice.  I commend Horton’s book to you and hope that it helps you delight in the God who acts and speaks!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Hearing the Word of God

/ davidsschrock

In his chapter on the way God speaks in the Bible, Michael Horton quotes Gabriel Fackre to argue that God’s speech comes to us through a unified series of prophetic utterances that God commands that we hear and believe.  Fackre posits,

The Bible is a book that tells an “overarching story.”  While imaginatively portrayed, it is no fictive account, having to do with turning points that have “taken place” and will take place, a news story traced by canonical hand.  Its “good news” is about events in meaningful sequence, unrepeatable occasions with a cumulative significance internal to their narration (in contrast to “myth” that dissolves uniqueness, expressing what is always and everywhere the case) (Covenant and Eschatology: A Divine Drama [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 145).

Horton goes on to commend us to hear God’s unified Word instead of attempting to see God,

A theology of vision corresponds to a theologia gloriae [a theology of glory], while a theology of promise [i.e. one that comes by hearing, cf. Rom. 10:17] corresponds to the theologia crucis [a theology of the cross].  The former craves an unmediated encounter with the sacred in a realized eschatology, while the latter patiently and joyfully receives the mediated encounter with a personal God in the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ tension that belongs to faith rather than sight (145).

 May we come to the storyline of Scripture not to vainly see God in some sort of mystical/magical way, but rather to hear the words of our Christ, and walk by faith anticipating the day when we will see him face to face. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

From Sinai to Chile to Zion: Why Visual Aids Do and Do Not Help Us See Christ in the Bible

/ davidsschrock

I am not a big fan of visual aids.  So, when I preach or teach, I do not use powerpoint and rarely use other forms of multimedia to explicate the biblical text.  There is much to debate here, but as a personal conviction, I aim at–i.e. pray for and work at– letting the Word of God speak in and through the words that I speak.  Why?  Because the word of God is effective and the Spirit is able.  Likewise, visual imagery has a way of overshadowing the text and effectively dulling us from the power and precision of God’s Word (Heb. 4:12-13). 

Yet, with that said, there are still times when visual imagery helps us discern Scriptural truth, where without the “visual aid” we would not understand the biblical text as well.  For instance, in 2005, as I stood on the Mount of Olives overlooking the temple mount, the Kidron Valley, and the Valley of Hinnom, the drama of Jesus’ last supper, arrest, and trials before Pilate and Herod took shape in my mind as I imagined him walking with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane and then back through the City of David to encounter the unrighteous judgments of his accusers.  All told, passages of Scripture like Matthew 26-28 and John 13-19 were illumined by the geographical imagery of Jerusalem

Still, coming back from Israel, I realized that a “holy land experience” is not necessary for understanding the Bible, even if it provides visual images for biblical texts.  Thus, I learned in a fresh way, that the word of God is sufficient for everything I need to know and love God.  As 2 Peter 1:4 says, through our knowledge of Christ (as found in Scripture), God has given us everything we need for life and godliness (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Deut. 29:29). So while my travels in Israel were profitable for visualizing the Bible, such a pilgrimmage is not necessary for salvation and sanctification. 

With that grid in place–namely that visual aids can be selectively helpful for understanding the Bible– I introduce a ‘visual aid’ that I ran across today, and which prompted thoughts of Exodus 19-24 and Hebrews 12.

01_chaitenv

Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Picture taken May 2, 2008. (Carlos Gutierrez)

As you ponder the picture, consider Moses words in front of Mount Sinai:

On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder. The Lord came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. And the Lord called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up (Ex. 19:16-20).

This electrifying image of a thunderstorm on top of a volcano in Chile provokes images of  what it must have been like to encounter the living God at Sinai.  Yet, that historical event, which may have looked something like this, is not spectacular because of its atmospheric power,  as much as its redemptive-historical significance.  Consequently, as terrifying as such an image is, Scripture tells us that the people did not fear the cosmological occurence, nearly as much as the One who stood behind the smoking curtain and SPOKE (cf. Deut. 4:33).  What terrified the people was not just the smoke on the mountain, but the Word of God itself.  Listen to their plea:

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was (Ex. 20:18-21).

What this picture and these texts remind us is that God’s world is frightening, and he is present in the world; but his word is even more fear-producing and his presence to save and to judge is mediated through his Word.  Accordingly, the people of God begged Moses for a mediator, and God was pleased to speak to them through Moses (Deut. 5:28-33).  The people’s fears were both incited by God’s Holy Word, and allayed by God’s merciful mediator.

The same is and should be true for us.  In the fullness of time, God sent another mediator, a greater Word, His own Son, Jesus Christ to confirm the words spoken at Sinai and to speak to God’s people as a sympathetic mediator.  Hebrews 12, in fact, says this very thing recalling the temptuous events at Sinai to beckon us to believe in Jesus Christ with greater fear and faith.  Consider these fearful words

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven (Heb. 12:18-25).

While we can picture Sinai, we have no way to preview Zion, but here is where the sufficiency and severity of God’s word is most powerful: The truth of the matter is that Zion is more awesome–terrible and glorious–than anything visible today.  Visual aids cannot helps us discern Zion, only God’s word can do that.   We can only apprehend Zion’s reality by faith in God’s word.  Thus we prepare ourselves for the kingdom’s arrival by meditating on God’s Word and prayerfully anticipating the coming of Jesus Christ, the final Word and the perfect mediator.

Thus as we look on the image of this Chilean mountain we are helped to imagine what it must have been like for the people of Israel to stand before God, but our hearts must not be contented to only look backwards.  By the revelation of God’s word, we are beckoned to look forward to the coming, unshakeable kingdom of God, remembering this fact: Our God is a Consuming Fire!  What happened at Sinai is only a foreshadowing of things to come.  In this respect, the visual aid above both furthers our understanding of Exodus 19-24, but fails to do the same for us and our impending encounter with God.  It is only God’s Word, written and incarnate (cf. John 1:14), that enables us to envision Zion and the reality of entering God’s presence.  Thus with fear and faith, may we respond in faith to the Holy Word of God (cf. Heb. 4:2).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Insufficiency of Biblical Theology ?

/ davidsschrock

Over the last thirty years, evangelicalism has seen a strong resurgence and appeal for biblical theology.  Evidences of this are the expanding series of books edited by D.A. Carson, New Studies in Biblical Theology; the New Dictionary for Biblical Theology; and the rising appeal of the subject among younger evangelicals.  Just come to Southern Seminary, and you will find students who, next to John Piper, have been most influenced by Graeme Goldsworthy.

Yet, is biblical theology enough?  Is it sufficient for the task of theology?  Some believe it is.  Fred Sanders, for instance, in his doctoral dissertation–now published as The Image of the Immanent Trinity–argues that the doctrine of the Trinity went awry as it entered the realms of philosophical discussion and systematic exploration.  The early church fathers (i.e. Irenaueus, Tertullian) spoke of God in biblical-theological terms, whereas later theologians (i.e. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Augustine, to name a few) employed philosophical nomenclature and concepts to define the Trinity.  Sanders argument is that this systematizing and (mis)use of philosophical categories distorted the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and that in order to recover a biblical concept of the doctrine we should appeal to biblical theology and a theological interpretation of Scripture.

I am not as sure.  Before beginning doctoral work in systematic theology, I would have believed it to be true that biblical theology was sufficient for doctrinal formulation, but after considering it further, I see the need for all the disciplines of theology (biblical, systematic, philosophical, and practical).  So, in this way, “biblical theology” alone is insufficient.

Now please hear me, I am not saying that the Bible is insufficient.  On the contrary, it is all-sufficient and gives us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4; cf. Deut. 29:29).  What I am saying is that the discipline of biblical theology, reading the Bible along the lines of its progressive revelation and its redemptive-historical makeup, is a part of a greater whole.  I think that today, biblical theology can be so emphasized that the other disciplines can be overshadowed and (un)intentionally de-emphasized.  The simple point I am trying to make is that biblical theology needs dogmatics, just like dogmatics need biblical, and of course, theology is always benefitted by considering the way in which doctrines have developed and deviated throughout the course of church history.

Herman Bavinck cautions against the same thing and articulates a fuller sense of doing theology.  Consider his argument,

Scripture is not a legal document, the articles of which only need be looked up for a person to find out what its view is in a given case.  It is composed on many books written by various authors, dating back to different times and divergent in content.  It is a living whole, not abstract but organic–[this is a favorite expression of HB].  It nowhere contains a sketch of the doctrine of faith; this is something that has to be drawn from the entire organism of Scripture.  Scripture is not designed so that we should parrot it but that as free children of God we should think his thoughts after him.  But them all so-called presuppositionaless and objectivity are impossible.  So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with it that no person can possibly do it alone.  That takes centuries.  To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth.   Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of Christian faith.  That person becomes a branch that is torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and therefore doomed to die.  Only within the communion of saints can the length and the breadth, the depth and the height, of the love of Christ be comprehended (Eph. 3:18)…. Accordingly, the contrast [or independence] often made between biblical theology and dogmatics, as though one reproduced the content of Scripture while the other restates dogmas of the church, is false (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena [Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2003], 83).

In this brief paragraph Bavinck shows why his Reformed Dogmatics are so illuminating as he consistently expounds Scripture, scours the annals of church history, and uses rigorous logic to formulate doctrine.  Accordingly, what emerges in his dogmatics is a biblical, systematic, and historical theology where each discipline enriches the other.  I think this model is optimal, and of course should also include the appropriate use of philosophy and analytical theology.

As people of extremes, Bavinck’s counsel reminds us to engage all forms of theology to perceive and proclaim the glorious truths of God’s word, and only as we do that can we explore the depths of God’s all sufficient word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Book Review: The Kingdom of God

/ davidsschrock

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church.  Nashville: Abingdon,1953.

If you like Graeme Goldsworthy, you will like John Bright; and if you come to John Bright’s book, The Kingdom of God, already familiar with Goldsworthy’s According to Plan, you will recognize some similar elements.  Bright unites the entire Bible along the lines of the kingdom of God, which he defines in many places as the people of God under the rule of God.  (He does not make quite as explicit the place of God, as Goldsworthy does).  Nevertheless, the two books share some common elements, which should not be entirely surprising because of the Union Theological Seminary connection, where Bright taught and Goldsworthy studied.

In the The Kingdom of God, Bright traces the kingdom from its origins in Israel to its already, but not yet manifestation in the Church of Jesus Christ, and in so doing he has aimed to assist the “general reader of the Bible” (11) understand the continuous aspects of the Scriptures.  Wary of the History of Religion school and the hyper-typology of those like Wilhelm Vischer, Bright’s hope is to do justice to the texts of Scripture while showing how the Kingdom of God resides in them all, “in one way or another” (11).  In short, his goal in writing this book is to be faithful to the Bible, stimulating to the church, and helpful for biblical theology.  Without being overly congratulatory, I think he hits his mark.

The book is broken down into 9 chapters.  The first six are devoted to the OT, while the last three address the NT.  Of these nine, the final chapter actually becomes sermonic and makes biblical application for the contemporary church (circa 1950’s).

In the first chapter, Bright moves from the Exodus to the reign of David tracing Israel’s religion, Israel’s historical development, and the rise of kingship in Israel.  Instead of speculating about the royal themes inchoate in Genesis, Bright moves right to the Exodus and the birth of the Israelite nation.  He sets up the context of the Ancient Near East, and the ways in which God elected Israel and made covenant with them.  With rapid succession, Bright moves to the Davidic Covenant so that Genesis – 2 Samuel are covered in the first chapter of the book.

In chapters 2, Bright moves to the Davidic Kingship under God’s judgment.  He outlines the history of the day, retelling the works of the Assyrian empire and the threat they brought to Israel.  He spends much time in the book of Amos, following the argument of the prophet, who shows that all nations are under judgment and failed attempts at ethical living can only postpone the judgment of God for so long.  What is needed is a new covenant.  In this chapter, Bright asserts the distinction between Israel and the kingdom of God–they are not coextensive.  This is something he will belabor throughout his work, namely that not all Israel is Israel.

In chapters 3-5, Bright moves from the judgment of Israel to the Exile and back again.  Showing an extraordinary grasp of the history, each chapter begins by setting Israel in its geo-political context.  He explains the rise to power of foreign nations and what effect this has on Israel’s kingdom.  In this historical context, he exposits the theological message of Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah (ch. 3), and then Jeremiah and Ezekiel (ch. 4-5).  He highlights theme of “remnant” that develops in this historical context, and from a barrage of biblical texts shows how the hopes of Israel are moving forward.  Eschatological anticipation is growing along with a hope for a promised Messiah to save Israel.  Simultaneous with this messianic hope is the hope and desire for a new covenant.

Finishing the OT and moving into the Intertestamental period (i.e. Second Temple Judaism), Bright recounts Israel’s return to Jerusalem and the minimal realization of the eschatological promises.  In chapter 6, Bright once again distinguishes himself as an excellent historian by showing how two inter-locking trends developed in the corporate mindset of Israel in the centuries leading up to Christ.  First, an apocalyptic hope emerged, whereby Jews began to believe and anticipate YHWH’s fiery intervention to establish his kingdom once again in Israel.  This was coupled with a second trend in which Israelites devoted themselves to the preservation (and expansion) of the law and the keeping of Torah.  The former is reflected in Daniel, the latter can be seen developing in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Both of these are also seen in other apocryphal literature, and manifested in the various Jewish sects present in Jesus own day (i.e. Qumran, the zealots, the scribes and Pharisees).  Bright’s analysis is that these two separate themes, apocalypticism and devotion to the law, actually served to support one another–the devotion to God’s law was thought to invite God’s intervention.   Likewise, these dual ideologies served to protect the national identity of Israel in the face of Hellenism and other foreign influences. 

It was in this historical millieu that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah was born.  In chapter 7, Bright surveys the gospel accounts of Jesus coming and fulfillment of OT promises.  Chapter 8 then speaks of the birth of the church and the way in which God’s people relate to the OT community and the Messiah himself.  Bright conceives of the kingdom of God as being already but not yet, and provides a good explanation of the way in which the kingdom is transferred from the Old to New Covenant, though his Presbyterianism comes out in that within the church itself, like ancient Israel, there remains a spiritual remnant.  He interprets the field of Matthew 13:38 as the church, not the world.  Other than this, his explanation is helpful.  Again, his strong suit is his painstaking historical detail.

Finally, chapter 9 moves from the lecture hall to the pulpit.  Bright applies the biblical, historical theology of the kingdom of God to the church today.  Unashamedly, he applies much of the kingdom theology to current political events in his era.  Thus communism and the Soviet Union get much attention, but really the evils of Red Russia serve as a foil to show how the judgment of God is coming on all nations of all time, because only the kingdom of Jesus Christ will eternally stand.

In the end, his book is very helpful, especially in situating the kingdom of God in the historical contexts of the Old and New Testaments.  Bright makes constant reference of his scholastic mentor, biblical historian, William Albright.  Albright’s influence is evident, as each chapter is started with many pages of historical notes and annotations.  Bright is faithful to the Bible, showing only occasional moderate leanings (i.e. Second Isaiah, a late dating of Daniel), but his unified project affirms the authority, inspiration, and unity of the Bible.  Moreover, his writing is very readable and he often incredibly witty, using common vernacular to explain scholastic points.  One final criticism, is his theological understanding of the church.  He abstracts the kingdom of God in the New Testament to be an spiritual, invisible community, much like the spiritual remnant of the Old Testament.  I suppose this is better than equating the church with the kingdom, but I believe George E. Ladd’s work on the church-kingdom relationship, where the church serves as visible manifestations of the kingdom, kingdom outposts, if you will, is a better conception.

All said, Bright’s work The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church is an excellent and enriching read, one that I highly recommend.  While other books on biblical theology do well to recapture the covenantal and literary structures of the Bible, you would be hard pressed to find another book that gives such rigorous attention to the historical details of the Bible.  At the same time, Bright’s emphasis on the later history of the kingdom of Israel during the time of the prophets stands out as an excellent treatment of that material. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Hourglass of Biblical History

/ davidsschrock

In his discussion of biblical history and the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, John Bright correctly observes:

Through the Old Testament the reader senses that the focus has been continually narrowed.  It begins with the broad canvas of creation and tells of the dealings of God with the whole race of mankind (Gen. 1-11); then it narrows to the people Israel whom God had called to be the special servants of his purpose; then still further to the search for a pure Remnant within Israel fit to be vessels of the divine intention.  At the center of the Bible’s drama the focus has narrowed to one man: the Messiah, Christ. [Consider Matthew 1:1-17].  But from Christ the focus again turns outward–first to the new Israel which is his Church and then through that Church, into the entire world.  The Church is called to take up–[i.e. continue and/or fulfill, more than replace]— the destiny of the true Israel, Servant Israel, and become the missionary people of the Kingdom of God (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville: Abingdon, 1953], 232-33).

Bright’s description shapes biblical history into an hourglass with Jesus Christ at the center.  Jesus’ central place in the biblical storyline makes him the narrow and necessary passage through which all the promises of the Old Testament must come to the post-Pentecost people of God.  Well said JB.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

John Bright on Biblical Intertextuality

/ davidsschrock

John Bright, in his book The Kingdom of God, offers a very historically-enriching and theologically-astute presentation of the kingdom which unifies the entire Bible.  I have benefitted much from reading it, especially in the way that he looks at the people under God’s rule as a unified and yet developing body of believers.  In this outline, he is much like Graeme Goldsworthy, who emphasizes God’s people, under God’s rule, in God’s place, but Bright’s pages are more comprehensive in scope, being filled with copious details about the kings of Israel, the dynasties of foreign nations, and the who’s, the when’s, and the how’s of Israel’s history. (It is noteworthy that Goldsworthy references Bright’s work at the end of many chapters in his book According to Plan). 

In The Kingdom of God, there are many helpful subjects, but I found this description of the Bible’s intertextuality most helpful.   He writes,

The Old Testament is, therefore, as it were, an incomplete book.  It is a story whose Author has not yet written the ending; it is a signpost pointing down a road whose destination–and surely its destination is a city, the City of God (Heb. 11:10, 16)–lies out of sight around many a bend.  [The OT] is a noble building indeed–but it lack a roof!

That roof, by its own affirmation, the New Testament supplies: in announcing in Christ the fulfillment of the hope of Israel it stands as the completion of the Old Testament.  But–and this must not be forgotten–to say that is at the same time to say that it cannot be understood to itself alone apart from the Old Testament.  If the Old Testament be a building without a roof, the New Testament alone may be very like a roof without a building–and that is a structure very hard to comprehend and very hard to hold up!  It is a structure that may be put to all sorts of uses and may shelter all sorts of things, but it is a structure which may be easily be knocked down.  By this we certainly do not mean to say the New Testament is merely an appendage of the Old, or to deny Christ is himself the cornerstone of a mighty building (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:4-7), but only to insist that it is impossible to set the New Testament apart and to construct a purely New Testament religion without regard to the faith of Israel.

The New Testament rests on and is rooted in the Old.  To ignore this fact is a serious error in method, and one that is bound to lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible message.  he who commits it has disregarded the central affirmation of the New Testament gospel itself, namely Christ had come to make actual what the Old Testament hoped for, not to destroy it and replace it with a new and better faith (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1953]).

May we never stop marveling at the wisdom and beauty of God’s holy Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Reformed Forums’ Interview with Richard Gamble

/ davidsschrock

The guys from Reformed Forum posted their recent interview with Richard Gamble, Professor of Systematic Theology at  Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary and author of the recently released The Whole Counsel Of God, vol. 1.  Their conversation ranged from the relationship of biblical theology to systematics to the massive task of compiling a biblical, systematic, and historical theology to the way in which Gamble’s new volume– 1 of 3– depends upon and compares with other biblical and systematic theologies.  In addition to considering Gamble’s opus, here is the bibliography of books they discussed:

I highly encourage you to check out the interview. 

One more thing, they gave an introductory plug for Greg Wills new book on the history of Southern Seminary (Gregory Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

4Gospels for You

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

How many gospels are there?  One… Four…  More?  A new website hosted by Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole, and other Cambridge scholars looks at this question and other gospel-related subjects in their new website, 4Gospels.com.  From the looks of it, this site will serve as an excellent resource for biblical scholars and Bible readers interested in understanding one gospel in four witnesses over against a plethora of other competitors.  Here is how they describe their website: 

Welcome to 4Gospels.com, a site run by scholars and postgraduate students based mainly in Cambridge, England, providing accessible information on the 4 Gospels in the New Testament as well as many other writings which are or have been called gospels.

More importantly, these young scholars are outspoken in their affirmation of the inspiration and authority of the biblical canon and will serve the church well with what they have written and what, Lord willing, they will write in years to come.  When Via Emmaus gets an overhaul at the end of the summer, this site will definitely find a place in its recommended resources. 

For an interesting and illimunating peek into the scholastic world of Williams and Gathercole, check out their 9Marks interview with Mark Dever (Nov. 2006).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

(HT: Owen Strachan).