Biblical Theology

Hapax Legomena? Six Resources to Help Read Biblical Literature Better

/ davidsschrock

This weekend, September 26-28, Bethlehem Baptist Church will be hosting Desiring God’s National Conference for Pastors.  This years plenary sessions will discuss “The Power of Words and the Wonder of God.”  This is a grand subject and one that I look forward to considering more as the MP3’s become available.  Why?  Because the Words of God are the Words of Life, and while they are sufficient for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4) and clear to the Spiritual man (1 Cor. 2:14-16; cf.  Deut. 29:29), they are not equally accessible.  In other words, reading the Bible requires a renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:1-2), able teachers (Eph. 4:11), and Spirit-empowered study (2 Tim. 2:7).  Just ask Peter about the difficulty of Paul’s writing (2 Peter 3:16).

The words of the Bible are not the only difficulty however in ascertaining a proper reading of Scripture.  Language employed to discuss the Bible can also be difficult.  When was the last time you were reading or listening to something about the Bible and got tripped up by unfamiliar langage–things like hypostatic union, pericope, or hapax legomena.  A dictionary sidebar or a parenthetical explanation might be helpful.  Biblical scholars and students of the Scripture have adopted a bevy of words, phrases, and descriptions to synthesize larger concepts and ideas.  Stepping into this river midstream can seem intimidating to the novice interpreter or the young Christian.  Hopefully what follows may help.

Spurred by Chad Knudson’s ‘Biblical Theological Glossary’, I have linked a number of cites that may be of assistance in reading the Bible better by having handy resources to give simple definitions of key terms and concepts in biblical theology, systematic theology, historical christology, archaeology, etc.  I hope these resources are helpful.  If you know of others, let me know and I will update the list.

Theological Word of the Day : A daily blog that provides helpful words, terms, and ideas in theology.  You can sign up to receive RSS feeds, or you can go to their website and browse previous terms.  Consider it a theological dictionary.com.

The Road to Emmaus Glossary: A short list of biblical-theological definitions for those beginning to study the Scripture’s diachronically.

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: This book is a helpful resource for biblical theology, and the whole of its contents can be found online.

Biblical Archaeology Glossary: Lots of terms about the history and exploration of biblical archaeology.

Biblical Studies Glossary: Contains many definitions and descriptions of terms and words associated with biblical interpretation, theology, and Church history.

Christological Dictionary: A helpful list of historical events, people, and discussions that helped formulate the Christology of the church leading up to Chalcedon.  (See also the Chart for Christological Heresies)

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Zondervan Quiz, Three Views Book, and Other Resources on OT/NT Hermeneutics

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

This Fall Zondervan is set to publish another book in its Counterpoints series.  The book, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, is a survey of differing ways evangelical Christians read the Scriptures.  Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, Peter Enns formerly of Westminster Seminary, and Walter Kaiser formerly of TEDS and Gordon-Conwell are its three contributors. 

In preparation for this release, Zondervan’s Koinonia blog has set up a seven question quiz that can help you determine what position best describes your biblical-theological hermeneutic.  It will peg you as either a Fuller Meaning, Single Goal View (Enns), Single Meaning, Unified Referents View (Kaiser), or a Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents View (Bock).  According to my responses, I am the last–which means, that in reading the OT/NT, I consider the authorial intent of the Old Testament writers to have historical and literary significance for them and their audience in their varied Ancient Near Eastern settings.  At the same time, inspired by the Spirit, I believe that they were aware that what they wrote was eschatologically pointing forward to Jesus Christ.  In other words, they wrote better than they knew.  Peter says as much in 1 Peter 1:10-12 when he writes, “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”   Likewise, this seems to be the way that Jesus reads the OT, identifying himself by means of these OT writers who pointed forward to him (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44).  Moreover, Paul and Jude employ this same hermeneutic when they read Christ into the OT (respectively, 1 Cor. 10:4; Jude 6).

All that to say, if these things interest you as they do me, and they should–putting the Bible together OT and NT is one of the most vital ways we can understand the God who has revealed himself and offered us salvation in his Son–then be sure to check out this multi-sided book.  In the meantime, you can also take the quiz here.

Other helpful resources on the subject include: G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament; G.K. Beale’s The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? ; Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics.

I look forward to reading the arguments in the upcoming Zondervan book, but i am still more excited to simply read my Bible and see Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Hermeneutics: How should 21st Century Christians Read the Old Testament?

/ davidsschrock

So here’s the question, posed by Josh Philpot: Should 21st century Christians reinterpret the OT in light of the NT the way the apostle’s did (in preaching and teaching)? Or, was there a specific hermeneutic used by the apostles (through divine revelation, of course) as the church began? Or, should we maintain the original intent of the OT author in the same way that we do for NT authors? Would this deemphasize the Messiah in the OT?

So much has been written on this subject lately.  These mere responses are just scratching the surface on a subject that has much history and much need for further exegetical examination.

My first thought is, Why would anyone want to intrepret the Scriptures, the OT in particular, in manner other than the apostles? Dividing the OT from the witness of the NT seems inherently Marcion, except with a priority given to the OT. With so many hazardous methods of correlation espoused throughout church history, the way that the apostles read the Scripture, as inspired readers and writers, seems best. Evaluating and judiciously employing their mode of interpretation seems to be the most biblically consistent way of reading the book that had a single Divine author.

I don’t think that the apostles ripped Scripture out of context, as some assert. Instead, being steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, discipled by Jesus himself, and uniquely led by the Holy Spirit, I give them pride of place in being able to interpret the OT. We know Jesus saw himself in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, and it only makes sense that those who walked with him after the Resurrection had their eyes and minds opened to see (Luke 24:31, 45) and understand how all the OT pointed to Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6; 2 Cor. 1:20; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). While we twenty-first centuries may have difficulty putting the testaments together, so did the apostles–until Jesus Christ explained the Scriptures to them (cf. Luke 24).  At which point, it appears that the apostles with the finality of the resurrection, couple with the instruction of the Christ, and the leading of the Spirit saw the light.   So, I gladly sit at their feet.

Personally, my method of interpretation has been influenced by Richard Lints three-fold approach found in his book, The Fabric of Theology, introduced by Steve Wellum, where we must read the text in its literary context–exegetically, epochally, and canonically.  As Daniel Block, a strong proponent of authorial intent, once said, “We must put ourselves in the shoes of the author to discern his original intent.” I agree, however, we cannot stop there and draw mere moral principles. We must move to the second horizon, the epochal context. Like Walter Kaiser, we must read the text in light of its antecedent theology and see how the text fits into its immediate historical and cultural context and its place in the storyline of Scripture. Finally, though, we must see the text in light of the entire canon of Scripture. We cannot think that God is making up the story as he goes. Jesus completing fulfills the OT Law, because when Moses was receiving the Decalogue, God was making preparations for Jesus to come and as the telos of the law (Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 10:4). Only when we read the Bible in light of all three contexts or horizons can we properly discern the authorial intent and the intention of the Author and Perfecter, Himself (cf. Heb. 12:2).  For instance, only in light of the coming of Jesus Christ does the annihilation Israel’s make sense. Without the “Big Picture” and the light of the NT, these ostensible commands for genocide do not have a context.

While I concede that the apostles, being inspired by the Spirit, had a measure of authoritative interpretation and inscripturation that we do not, I think that should encourage twenty-first century Christians to look to their interpretative model all the more, not discourage exegetes from looking at their model. Would it be better to look to the allegorical method of Alexandria? Or the demythologization of Bultmann? Or the trajectory hermeneutic of William Webb? Or even the historical-literary model of Robert Stein?  No, it seems much better to give attention to Peter, Paul, and John. Those who deny NT light to illuminate OT Scripture minimize the unity of the Bible, disregard Jesus’ statement that all Scripture points to him (Luke 24:26-27, 44-46; John 5:39), and neglect an interpretative method that maintains full biblical authority, encourages a forward-looking, hope-giving biblical eschatology, and esteems Jesus Christ.

All that to say, in reading the OT like the apostles (or at least attempting to), Jesus Christ is most highly exalted and most closely rooted in the biblical contours of the canon. So I affirm the apostolic reading of the Scripture, and humbling attempt to see how the OT and NT fit together, unified in Christ (Eph. 1:10).

I know I haven’t figured it all out.  I haven’t come close.  But as I read the Scriptures, the gospel of Jesus Christ comes alive as I see the shadows of Christ in the Old Testament and His substance in the New Testament.  To that end, I will keep reading the whole counsel of Scripture, looking for Jesus.  What about you?

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Biblical Theology is Coming to WordPress

/ davidsschrock

Drs. Jim Hamilton, T.D. “Desi” Alexander, Stephen Dempster, and Michael Bird have started a biblical theological blog on WordPress. Here is how they describe their blog, biblicaltheology.wordpress.com:

This blog exists for the glory of God, in service to the church, to promote the study and discussion of biblical theology’s history, methodology, aims, achievements, developments, direction, and points of contact with other approaches to the study of the Bible.

Sounds good. I have added this to my google reader and look forward to keeping up with the conversation.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

More Vaughan Roberts: The Goal and Glory of Marriage

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment


In his book, God’s Big Design: Life as He intends it to be, Anglican Rector Vaughan Roberts devotes a chapter to “God’s Design for Sex and Marriage.” In the chapter, he makes a three-fold assertion: God is for sex; Sex is for marriage; and Marriage is for life. Unpacking these premises, Roberts reiterates the point that the ultimate goal of marriage is more than relational companionship and the alleviation of loneliness, and that the glory of marriage is not found in the mere ability to achieve marital bliss but in the couple’s invitation to reflect Christ’s marriage to the church. His comments are worth pondering.

The Goal of Marriage:

Mutual delight was never intended to be the ultimate goal of the relationship. The words of Genesis 2:18 must be understood in context. God has issued the creation mandate: human beings are to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 2:18). In Genesis 2:15 Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden and commanded “to work it and take care of it.” It is immediately after that command that God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” The natural thought from the low of the test, therefore, when we are told that Adma needs a “helper,” is that this is connected with the work that he has been given to do. He needs some one to come to his aid for he cannot do this work “alone” (78-79).

Quoting Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God, Roberts continues],

“Marriage is given to enable humankind to exercise responsible dominion over God’s world.”  So, far from being inward-looking , a married couple should be looking upward to God and outward to the world in which he calls them to seve him. “In the Bible’s perspective the way forward is neither via individual autonomy nor introspective companionship, but in the joyful shared service of God” (79).

Roberts admonition flies in the face of therapeutic resolutions to marriage problems.  Its powerful implication is that it challenges couples encountering the corrosive effects of interpersonal sin to abandon the marriage retreat and go on a short-term mission trip.  (Point of clarification: I think marriage retreats are good and necessary, but short-term service better).  Rather than introspectively dividing character qualities into strengths and weaknesses, the goodness of marriage is found in shoulder-to-shoulder service where the object of compassion is a stranger, a widow, or an orphan.  If this does not produce spiritual fruit and sanctification, what will. 

Consider, why is it that so many empty-nester get divorces?  Could it be that their season of mutual service has ended and they are no longer working together on a common task?  They are no longer serving their children together and thus marital fidelty and cooperation has lost focus.  Roberts biblical exhortation is for all married couples to take seriously the original tasks (i.e. be fruitful, multiply, increase, and subdue) and to do it together.  Looking upwards to God and outwards to others, husbands and wives find their ultimate purpose in fulfilling the Great Commission in uniquely masculine and feminine ways.  Walking together with different gifts and abilities, these purpose-driven (excuse the expression) marriages co-labor for the sake of the kingdom.

The Glory of Marriage:

Marriage is a picture of the relationship of Christ and his church. The apostle Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 and comments, “This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32). He is saying that the fundamental relationship is between Christ and his people. There is no deeper, more profound marriage than that. The marriage of a man and a woman is just a shadow of the marriage between Christ and his church. It is not that human marriage provides a useful illustration for Bible writers to use to speak of the relationship between God and his people; it is the other way round. The relationship between Christ and his church comes first; human marriage is patterned after it” (85).

Which means that from before the foundation of the world, God was thinking about marriage. As He was forming Eve in the Garden from Adam’s rib, our Heavenly Father was anticipating and preparing the way for His Son’s union with his bride–the church. So then the last marriage is first, and all earthly marriages serve as eschatological signs of the marriage of the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. This cosmic representation heightens the importance of our marriages and the necessity for preserving them from the pollution of this world. Roberts concludes by emphasizing the Christ-church mystery which “underlines the importance of faithfulness. [God] never breaks his promises and he expects the same commitment in our marriages with one another” (85).

It is a glorious mystery and privilege when a man and woman marry.  Their marriage actually participates in the cosmic story of redemption, and their sexual union bears witness to the eschatological hope of consummation with Christ. It causes us to pause and to ponder the goodness and wisdom of God.  Moreover, reflecting on the heavenly origins of marriage elevates the value of our own marriages in a culture that consumes relationships like Chinese take-out.  The Divine Marriage dignifies human marriages so much more than relational consumerism.

May we live counter-cultural lives and love our wives for the sake of Jesus Christ and his bride, the church!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Acts 13:13-41 (pt. 3, OT Fulfillment and Response)

/ davidsschrock

Today is the third part of a message I taught from the book of Acts on the biblical-theological nature of Paul’s sermon in Antioch of Pisidia.  There is much to be gleaned from Paul’s method of preaching and much to be believed from the content of his message. 

Following this canonical explanation, Paul goes back to the Scriptures and explains Jesus kingship, covenantal obedience, and resurrection in light of three OT passages (13:33-39). He assigns the subject matter in each passage to Jesus and says what was promised before has come to life in the son of the carpenter. From the second Psalm, Paul affirms Jesus as the son who God has chosen and set as king in Zion. Implicitly, this exhorts his audience to repent of their raging and to kiss the Son (Ps. 2:12).

From Isaiah 55:3, Paul says that Jesus has received all the blessings of David. In context, Isaiah 55 is the blessed result of the suffering servant’s substitutionary atonement in Isaiah 53. Through sacrifice, payment for sin has been accomplished; the servant has made blessing again possible for those estranged by sin. Moreover, the servant now lifted up in glory has received the blessings of God for his perfect work and he shares these things with all those who trust in his work.

Finally, from Psalm 16, Paul describes the way in which Jesus’ resurrection points towards an eschatological resurrection for all those who are found in him (cf. 2 Tim. 2:11-12). Unlike David who died and was buried, Jesus never saw corruption; rather in his death, he defeated death because the grave could have no mastery over him. In the end, Jesus was himself vindicated and raised from the dead as the first-fruits of a great harvest to come, where all those who are united to him in baptism (cf. Rom. 6:4-7), will also be reunited to him in his life and resurrection.

Thus Paul, using three key OT texts shows how Jesus fulfilled all the OT promises of kingship, covenant, and resurrection. Turning from explanation to exhortation, Paul concludes his message by calling his hearers to believe in the Christ, to place faith in him and “be freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (13:40). He offers them a gospel of grace–justification by faith, not by works! Simultaneously, he quotes Habakkuk 1:5 and warns them not to reject the offer of God. Whereas in the original context of Habbakuk, YHWH was bringing judgment on the people of Israel because of their sin, now he is offering hope, life, and salvation because the judgment was inflicted on the royal son thus extinguishing once and for all the wrath of God for those who are in the Son. God is still at work, but the righteousness of God is not in the punishment of sin (yet), it is in the offer of free grace purchased at the cost of Jesus blood. In other words, no judgment remains for those in Christ.

For Paul’s audience, this message produced great excitement. The hearers longed to hear more. So much so, that the next week the whole city came out to hear this message (13:44). They came out not to just hear a great preacher, but to hear a great message of salvation. And the result was that many believed. In fact, in accordance with the sovereign will of God, “all those appointed for eternal life believed” (13:48). So great was the effect of this gospel that “the word of the Lord [spread] throughout the whole region” (13:49). The powerful gospel message begun in the Old Testament, manifested in the life of Jesus Christ, and preached by the apostle Paul in Antioch had incredible life-saving results. The same is true today. The gospel of Jesus still saves those who have ears to hear.  Will you believe?

To tell the rest of the story, not all those who heard believed.  Sadly, as quickly as the crowd formed to hear Paul, a band of high standing women and leading men forced the apostle out of the city (13:50). Their ears were not open to hear, their lives were not appointed unto eternal life, and the message of Christ seemed like foolishness to them. Instead of humbly receiving the message of Jesus Christ, they cursed Paul and heaped upon themselves the judgment of God.

Nevertheless, Paul’s message stands! It brought salvation to those who first heard his preaching and it still brings deliverance to those who read Luke’s account.  It remains available to all those who are willing to believe the testimony that Jesus Christ came and fulfilled all the OT promises; he came to die a criminals death on a Roman cross even though he himself never sinned; more miraculously, he rose again from the grave on the third day according to the Scriptures and he has ascended to the right hand of the father where he awaits the culmination of his kingdom. And what does he do in the meantime? He intercedes on behalf of those who trust in his name, and he sends out emissaries who will carry the good news to all the nations. Such is the biblical-theological message of the gospel.  The choice, by God’s grace, is now yours:  Will you hear his voice? Will you believe his good news? Will you go tell the nations? Tell them what?

From the beginning of creation, to the end of the age and beyond, Jesus Reigns! Go in his peace!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Acts 13:13-41 (pt. 2, Fall & Redemption)

/ davidsschrock

After Paul addresses his audience and touches on creation, he moves to the heart of the gospel: the desperate lostness of fallen sinners and the compassionate grace of God to provide redemption in Jesus Christ.  Here is the second part of my exposition on Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:

Redemption is the theme of the Bible, and in Abraham redemption begins to take shape. God who made mankind in his image, to bear his likeness, and rule his creation, is now restoring a people for himself. Mankind by way of deception sinned against God, incurred his judgment, and fell under the thralldom of sin and Satan and incurred the righteous judgment of death and damnation (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-21). Yet, from the first sin in the garden forward, YHWH has been seeking to save a people for himself (Gen. 3:15), and the covenant with Abraham is the first official announcement of such good news (cf. Gal. 3:8). (The covenant with Noah, though necessary for salvation history to continue, preserves humanity more than it promises redemption).

Moving forward in Paul’s sermon, the great apostle emphasizes the shape of redemption in the story of the Exodus. Paul recounts Israel’s captivity in Egypt and speaks of “the uplifted arm” that delivered the people of Israel from Pharaoh’s afflictions (Acts 13:17). The uplifted arm pictures both Moses lifting the staff at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:6) and more powerfully the effect of God’s righteous right arm which promised salvation for Israel (Ex. 6:6; cf. Isa. 51:5; 52:10; 59:16)—the first connection is literal and historic, the second is an anthropomorphism but just as historic.

Paul goes on to rehearse the salvation history of Israel (Acts 13:18ff). He recounts God’s patient endurance in the wilderness, his powerful leadership in the entry and conquest into the promised land. He references the destruction of the nations (v.18), the exaltation of Israel (v. 19), the cycle of disobedience, judgment, contrition, and deliverance through a God-ordained mediator, and the painful return to disobedience found in Judges (v. 20), and finally the establishment of the king (v.21).  The arrival of the king is a fulfillment of kingdom promises in the Torah; it is also the high point of Israel history, one that would establish an everlasting covenant for David’s descendent to reign on the throne (2 Sam. 7), and one that would permanently guarantees YHWH’s provision of such a king (cf. Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-10; Dan. 2:44-45; etc. ). Though this kingdom tottered and fell, the Messianic promises remain and have now been fulfilled in Christ (v. 23). This leads Paul to his next phase in his sermon.

Moving from ancient Scripture to the recent events of the Messianic fulfillment, Paul recalls the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Verse 23 is the culminating verse, “From the descendents of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus!” Surely the Jewish segment of Paul’s audience would have been tracking with him through the history of Israel, some may have even granted him the inclusion of John the Baptist, but when he turned to Jesus Christ, he was submitting a whole new chapter in the history of God and his revelation. Yet, this is clearly the final crescendo in God’s master symphony. Jesus Christ came as the son of Abraham and the son of David (Matt. 1:1), the recipient of all the promises and the royal son who would sit on the throne of David. He obeyed all the law and thus upheld the covenant long since broken by the rest of Israel (Matt. 5:17-18). In this Paul upholds Jesus as the perfect Israelite who ratified the covenant with YHWH and made a way of salvation for his brethren.

Then Paul, capturing the attention of his audience again, (v. 26), declaims how Jesus was misunderstood, how the Scriptures well-known and well-read in Jerusalem were dismissed concerning Jesus, and how the leaders sought to dispatch of this unruly prophet. Paul recounts the suffering, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus (13:26-29). But as soon as Paul touches the low note of Jesus death, he responds with the positive affirmation of his resurrection from the dead (13:30). The crucified savior is none other than the exalted messiah! In the life of Jesus, both the suffering servant and exalted messiah are embodied. Jesus himself is the message of salvation, and his resurrection is its final and highest proof. This is the good news and the completion of all that God has promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and the prophets, and this is the full-orbed biblical-theological gospel message that Paul left with the Galatians (and us).

The question then becomes, what must I do in to know this Jesus, the risen king, and the triumphant savior?  We will consider Paul’s conclusion tomorrow, but you can know for yourself today today: Acts 13.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Acts 13:13-41 (pt. 1: Introduction & Creation)

/ davidsschrock
Recently, I had the privilege of teaching in the Senior Saints ABF (Adult Bible Fellowship, i.e. Sunday School) at 9th & O Baptist Church. They have been going through the book of Acts, and my assignment was Acts 13-14. Luke’s account of the church of Antioch and Paul’s first missionary journey are amazing in that within an incredibly short time, the region of Galatia which had not yet heard the gospel had established churches with elders (14:23). It shows the power of the gospel to change lives and to take root in a ripe culture; moreover it shows the fruit of faithful and bold messengers of the gospel.

My threefold layout of the passage which followed thematic lines–it is difficult to do verse-by-verse exposition of two chapters in only 45 minutes–was this: The Church that Sends; The Gospel that Saves; and the Saints who Suffer. Below is the first of three installments of my exposition of Acts 13:13-41. In it Paul lays out with clarity and rigorous attention to the OT, the gospel of Jesus Christ. His message is strikingly biblical-theological, and it is a model of preaching excellence. May we, as students of the word, study its form and content and learn how to better share the gospel.

Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:13-41 is one of many recorded by Luke in his narrative (cf. Acts 14, 17, 20). It is like Peter’s sermons in the way that it employs OT Scripture and provides Christocentric interpretations; it is like Stephen’s in Acts 7 as it covers so much OT history, but in its own right it is very Pauline, espousing themes and theology found later in his epistles.

It is important to realize that this sermon in Acts contains the contents of the gospel to which Paul refers in Galatians 1. In his excoriating letter, he contrasts “his” gospel with the gospel(s) that are being erroneously advocated by false teachers. Since Acts 13 records the gospel which Paul preached to the Galatians, it is vital to follow his train of thought and his Christocentric exposition to understand Paul’s reasoning in his subsequent letter to the Galatians. In Acts, Luke gives us a full report of Paul’s gospel, drawing our attention to the highpoints of his message and allowing us to make the intratextual connections necessary to perceive the Pauline gospel. So with that said, lets consider Paul’s gospel message.

Waiting for the Scripture to be read (v. 15a) and the invitation to be given (v. 15b), Paul, in verse 16, stands to explain the text read in light of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:27, 44-46). From his opening line, it is clear that he addresses a mixed audience of Jews and Gentile God-fearers, “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen.”

Gaining his audience’s attention, Paul starts in Genesis with a reference to YHWH’s gracious selection of Abraham and his kin from the nations, “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers”. Calling the patriarch from idolatry, the God of Israel’s covenantal love is immediately highlighted. Contrary to modernist religious teachers who say that spirituality and religion are sociological and psychological constructs, God revealed himself to Abraham in history and chose him to be the father of his blessed people. To Abraham and those united to him, he promised a land, untold blessings, a heritage, and his own personal presence in their midst (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; 15:4-7; 17:1-8). The history of Israel chronicles the working out of these covenantal promises.

This Abrahamic beginning implies with it the reality of creation ex nihilo. For the God who called Abraham is the same God who created the heavens and the earth. This is apparent in the narrative of Genesis, where chapters 1-11, which speak about the origin of humanity, are linked via Abraham with chapters 12-50, which initiate God’s plan of redemptive history. Likewise, Paul’s preaching in Acts 14 and 17 explicitly refers to the God of Israel as the God who created all things. He says of YHWH in Lystra that he is the “living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them” (14:16). Clearly, God is the unique Maker of all creation. Thus Paul’s gospel message is founded in creation. He does not demean the corporeal and physical nature of our world. Instead, he roots the origin of creation in the divine design of YHWH, the God of Israel.

This, in and of itself, is good news. God created a bountiful world, one designed to provide pleasures and provisions for all God’s creatures. And though the world, as we know it, contains horrors that undulate with beauty, it was not always that way (cf. Gen 1-2), nor will it always be that way (cf. Rev. 21-22). Taking creation (and its fall) into account, the gospel is not opposed to the inhabitable world. Rather, through redemption, it goes to show how all creation is being renewed and directed on a course towards new creation. For as we will see, the message of the gospel which begins with creation in the Garden of Eden, will culminate in the new creation’s garden-city, the New Jerusalem.

(More to follow…)

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Poythress on Biblical Theology and Biblical Theologies

/ davidsschrock


Vern Poythress, in the Westminster Theological Journal (70/1 [2008] 129-42), writes a thought-provoking article about different “Kinds of Biblical Theology.”  His aim is “to reassess the present-day possibilities for biblical theology’s relation to systematic theology” and to show how one cannot be done without the other.  To start, Poythress sketches a brief history of the term, “biblical theology,” contrasting Geerhardus Vos with Johann Gabler and James Barr.  Following Vos, and leaning on the earlier work of Richard Gaffin, Poythress argues for reading the Bible with attentiveness to the divine unity of ‘biblical theology’ and nuanced recognition of the different ‘biblical theologies’ espoused by various biblical authors.   He compares biblical theology to a historical, linear representation of Scriptures, while systematic theology attempts to encircle various biblical themes into logical spheres.  Both approaches are necessary and heuristically viable, and both should be employed by biblical exegetes.

Moreover, Poythress encourages faithful systematicians and biblical theologians to use both BT and ST to read the Bible.  This two-fold approach coheres with the unity and diversity, the history and the logic of the Scripture.  Speaking of this, he writes cautioning against oversimplifications in biblical theology:

Why not write the theology of Paul with resurrection and union with Christ as a central organizing theme, while a theology of the Synoptics would have as a central theme the coming of the kingdom of God? Then a theology of Hebrews would focus on the superiority of Christ, particularly in his high priestly ministry; a theology of John might make central the theme of the revelation of God in Christ; a theology of Revelation might choose theophany and spiritual war as central; a theology of James might make wisdom central; a theology of 1 Peter might choose suffering for Christ as central. A theology of 2 Thessalonians–why not contemplate such a thing?–might make central the hope for the Second Coming. A theology of the Pastoral Epistles might choose the theme of gospel ministry as central.

In laying out such a proposal, Poythress encourages us to read the Bible more carefully.  Affirming Scripture’s divine origin, inspiration, and coherence, he cautions that we should not force themes, systems, or concepts on the Bible. Instead, we should read each Spirit-breathed book, author, and genre with attention to the details of the text. BT and ST should work together to unpack the riches of God’s Word, and we should boldly proclaim the spiritual unity and contextual diversity that is found in God’s redemptive history.

May we do so with power and precision. 

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Biblical-Theological Resources on the Psalter

/ davidsschrock / 3 Comments

This summer our Adult Bible Fellowship, Wellum’s Couples, has been studying the book of Psalms. Attempting to read the Psalter as a canonical unit, instead of 150 disjointed praises and laments, Dr. Wellum has been showing us the themes and the biblical-theological connections established in the Psalms.  This weekend, I had the privilege of teaching Psalm 24.

In preparation for the lesson, I considered a number of books and articles that proved helpful in reading the Psalter canonically.  In contrast to the higher-critical scholarship done in the later nineteenth and twentieth century, the resources listed below mark a more recent turn in Psalm scholarship, seeking to point out the unity and structure of the Psalter. Not all the resources are equally helpful or detailed, but they are a place to start if you are desirous of reading the Psalter as one, God-inspired canonical unit.

Stephen Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty (IVP: 2003) pp. 194–202.

Dempster sees David as the main idea in the Psalter: “[The Psalter’s] fivefold structure echoes the first section of the canon, the five books of Moses. Seventy-three of the psalms have the name ‘David’ in their titles, and Davidic psalms are strategically placed in each book of the Psalter. The Psalter opens with a flurry of Davidic psalms and closes with a similar grouping, Ps. 3-9; 11-32; 34-41; 138-145 (194).

Jamie Grant, “Singing the Cover Version: Psalms, Reinterpretation and Biblical Theology in Acts 1–4” in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology.

Grant’s journal article attempts to show how NT usage of the Psalter in Acts 1-4 could serve as a helpful paradigm for reading the Scriptures typologically. Grant also has another book,The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms (SBL: 2004), that looks helpful for reading the Psalter well.

Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms (Eerdmans, 2008)

Brand new commentary on the Psalms in the The Two Horizons OT Commentary series. Grogan spends the first half of the book commenting on individual psalms, and the second half considering the Psalter thematically, biblical-theologically, and then with regard to contemporary issues in evangelical theology. The second half of the book seems very helpful in drawing out themes in the Psalter, but it does not do as well in helping to understand the internal structure of the Psalms themselves.

Paul House, “The God Who Rules,” in Old Testament Theology (IVP:1998), p. 402–23.

Though only a chapter, this may have been the most helpful treatment. Citing John Walton’s JETS article on the Psalter (1991), House writes: “Psalms displays a ‘content agenda’ that includes an introduction (Ps 1-2), David’s conflict with Saul (Ps 3-41), David’s Reign (Ps 42-72), the Assyrian crisis (Ps 73-89), reflection on Jerusalem’s destruction (Ps 90-106), reflection on the return to the land (Ps 107-145) and concluding praises (146-150). These divisions and contentment statements keep faith with the shape of the Psalms ans offer ways by which major theological themes may be discussed. They also allow for both essential diversity and necessary unity in Psalms interpretation” (405).

David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of the Psalms  (Sheffield Academic:1997).

Mitchell’s work underscores the eschatological trajectory in the Psalms in general; chapter 2 considers the arrangement of the Psalter in particular. Recognizing “the headings and content of individual psalms, the sequence of the Psalms, the arrangement of the internal collections and the five-book arrangement” (89), Mitchell attempts to construct a reading the Psalter that is both tied to history and eschatological in emphasis. He sees Zechariah 9-14 as a key to understanding the Psalms, and he spends much time developing this intratextual link. Some of his connections seem speculative, but his work challenges us the reader to consider the Psalter more carefully.

Marvin Tate’s article in Peter Craigie’s Word Biblical Commentary, Psalms (Word: 2004) p. 438–72.

Found in the 2004 update of Peter Craigie’s commentary, Southern Seminary’s own Psalm scholar writes a helpful piece, tracing recent scholarship on the Psalter. He writes: “There is too much evidence of intention and design to assume that the Psalter was simply thrown together in a jumble out of disparate texts without regard to placement or design. We need not, and should not, expect the process to reflected in the Psalms to meet the standards of a modern artistically structured texts. A fully “systematic” redaction will not be found, but this need not deter us from a careful analysis of intertextual relationships between continguous psalms in pairs, clusters, blocks, books, and divisions, as well as the psalter as whole (468).

Soli Deo Gloria, ds