Archive - Biblical Theology RSS Feed

Genesis 1:26-28 as the Statement of the Bible’s Theological Center

November 8, 2011 in Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis with 1 Comment

The resurgence of the biblical theology movement of the past thirty years or so has given rise to a host of issues attendant to that discipline, including the search for a center, or organizing principle, around which the biblical data might be ordered. . . . It is the thesis of this article that such a center does exist and that it lies in the concept of the kingdom of God, the only concept broad enough to encompass the diversity of biblical faith without becoming tautological. . . . Theology must make a statement about God (the subject) who acts (the verb) to achieve a comprehensive purpose (the object).

If this is the case, not only would one expect that statement to be the interlocking and integrating principle observable throughout the fabric of biblical revelation, but he would also expect it to be enunciated early on in the canonical witness in unmistakable terms. Hence, Genesis should most likely provide the seed-bed in which the anticipated proposition is to be found. And a careful reading of that book of beginnings reveals a statement of purpose that is so striking in its clarity and authority that there can be little question it is the very formula we seek to establish the Bible’s own theological center: ‘Then God [the subject] said, “Let Us make [the verb] man [object] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule [purpose] over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky. . . .” God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Gen. 1:26-28).

The theme that emerges here is that of the sovereignty of God over all His creation, mediated through man, His vice-regent and image. Thus Genesis, the book of beginnings, introduces the purposes of God, which remain intact throughout the Old and New Testaments despite the sin of man and the impairment of his ability to be and do all that God had intended. The failings of His creation—a major theme of human history and of the Bible itself—are unable to frustrate the ultimate purposes of God, for the language of eschatology is replete with the overtones of redemption and salvation that bring about a renewal of all that God desired to do in creation. There will be a new heaven and new earth wherein dwells righteousness (Rev. 21:1; cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22).

Eugene H. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 211-12.

What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?

March 26, 2010 in Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Christian Living, Dogmatics with 0 Comments

Kevin Vanhoozer admits that “initially, it is easier to say what theological interpretation is not rather than what it is” (DTIB, 19; cf. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis, 145f.; Peter Kline, “Prolegomena,” Princeton Theological Review 14.1 (Spring 2008): 5). He specifies some things that it is not: “Theological interpretation of the Bible is not an imposition of a theological system or confessional grid onto the biblical text.” It is not, “an imposition of a general hermeneutic or theory of interpretation onto the biblical text.” And it is not, “a form of merely historical, literary, or sociological criticism preoccupied with “(respectively) the world ‘behind,’ ‘of,’ or ‘in front of’ the biblical text” (DTIB, 19).

Marcus Bockmuehl probes the issue with a question: “Is there perhaps some sense in which the living and lived word of Scripture shapes both exegesis and theology reciprocally, and in which dogmatics articulately engages and in turn illuminates the hearing of that word?” (Bockmuehl, in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible, 8; cf. Vanhoozer in DTIB, 20).

Theological interpreters answer Bockmuehl in the affirmative: interpreters must refuse to sequester theology from exegesis. This means the text is read as Christian Scripture by those within the Christian church. Furthermore, theological interpreters read the Scripture as addressed to them as Christians (and not merely addressed to communities in the past) for the purpose of spiritual transformation (and not merely as ancient texts to be analyzed) (see Gorman, 146f.).

Thus theological interpretation maintains two key emphases. First, it holds that exegesis should shape doctrine and that doctrine should influence exegesis. Second, it holds that theology is ultimately about faithful living.

Matthew 7 in Context

March 27, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Matthew with 0 Comments

Matthew 7 does not, at first, glance seem to flow from what precedes. The scene shifts quickly from a discussion of wealth and provision to a section on judgment, to a section on prayer, to the Golden Rule.

Perhaps the section on judgment (Matt. 7:1-5) follows as Jesus brings the sermon to a close because those who take the high standards of the sermon seriously may be tempted to be judgmental toward those who don’t meet the Sermon’s standards. Jesus warns them to take stock first of their own condition before God.

Matthew 7:6 serves as a corrective toward any who read 7:1-5 as a rejection of all discernment.

The section on prayer (Matt. 7:7-11) is fitting toward the conclusion of a sermon that makes such high demands. Disciples will certainly need God’s aid if they are to live according to his expectations. Jesus’ words encourage his disciples that God is generous in answering his children’s requests. This kind of encouragement may be especially necessary because our progress in sanctification so often seems slow and our prayers for the mortification of sin may seem to go unanswered. Jesus assures us that if we ask, it will be given us; if we seek, we will find; if we knock it will be opened. Our heavenly Father gives good things to those who ask him.

The Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) provides a fitting summary to the body of the Sermon. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). Here he says the Law and the Prophets can be summed up in this way: “Whatever you wish that others would do for you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” What comes between are the details of how this works out in the kingdom age.

These details are somewhat different than those of the Mosaic age. But the difference is not due to the abolishing of the law and the prophets. If anything, the Sermon outlines higher standards to which the Law and the Prophets pointed. The continuity is emphasized in that those who obey Jesus’ words in this Sermon in the end fulfill the second great commandment in which the whole law is fulfilled (Gal 5:14; Matt. 7:12).

Jesus and the Law in the Sermon on the Mount

March 25, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Matthew with 0 Comments

This is an attempt to understand Jesus’ teaching about the Law in Matthew 5:17-20.

Jesus’ announcement of the arriving kingdom evidently raised questions about the continuing place for the Law. This may have especially been the case if His hearers made the correct connection between the coming kingdom and the New Covenant, a covenant that Jeremiah said would not be like the covenant made at Sinai (Jer. 31:31-32).

Jesus’ clarification has been itself confusing for some interpreters. There are a number of false interpretations that can be cleared away at the outset.

First, when Jesus said that he did not intend to abolish the law, he was not saying that Christians would be obligated to obey every part of the Old Testament law until the end of the world. Hebrews 10:18 has made it clear that Jesus’ death brought an end to the sacrificial system. Jesus himself declared all foods clean, rendering the Old Testament food laws no longer binding on God’s people (Mark 7:19; cf. Acts 10:15). Even within Matthew 5, Jesus is going to make some changes to the Mosaic law (see for instance Jesus’ comments about divorce in light of Matt. 19:8-9).

Second, some people argue that when Jesus says that he is not going to abolish the law, he means the moral law rather than the civil or ceremonial law. But the moral, civil, ceremonial distinction was developed during the Middle Ages. It can’t be read back into the New Testament.

The key to understanding the passage is to understand what Jesus meant by “fulfilling” the law. Matthew uses this term fifteen other times in his gospel and in all but three he is referring to the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In these other passages Jesus doesn’t necessarily fulfill a direct prophetic prediction; but in every case he fulfills the Old Testament by being that to which it pointed forward.

In relation to the Law, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament by bringing about the kingdom in which it is possible to live in the way that the Old Testament pointed toward.

This means that the Old Testament retains its validity until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished even though it is no longer the binding covenant of God’s people. Thus one who “looses” an Old Testament commandment comes under God’s disfavor. What God actually demands for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is a righteousness far beyond that of Israel’s most scrupulous law-keepers.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Leadership

February 4, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

The book emphasizes Joshua as the godly successor to Moses. Joshua was not the Prophet like Moses, but he was a leader like Moses. The close of the book that notes that Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and the elders who survived him foreshadows that Israel stopped serving him when no leader like Moses followed. Judges concludes by noting the need for a king, which of course has a messianic implication.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Holiness

February 2, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

If the Israelites were to subdue the land and live out the dominion mandate as a kingdom of priests to the rest of the world, holiness or purity of worship was absolutely necessary.

Genesis 15:16 and Leviticus 18:24-25 indicates that placing the Canaanites under the ban was a judicial matter, but the Canaanites were put also under the ban so that Israel would not be adversely affected by the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-4; 20:17-18). Israel would not be an effective priest to the nations (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 4:5-8) if it succumbed to the sins of the Canaanites.

Thus, ironic as it may sound, the extermination of the Canaanites seems to include a missionary motive.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Covenant

January 27, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

Because the promises God kept were covenant promises, the covenant is a theme in Joshua.

The covenant theme also appears in the opening and closing of the book. In both places Israel is exhorted to keep the Mosaic Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant is emphasized in chapter 3 with the crossing of the Jordan and in chapter 8 with the renewal of the covenant.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – God’s Promises

January 22, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

The reception of the land both in general and in many particulars was the fulfillment of promises that God had made to the patriarchs and to the nation. The fulfillment of these promises is especially noted in Joshua 21:43-45: “Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Land

January 21, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

Land is the key theme of Joshua. The book opens with God commanding Joshua to lead the people across the Jordan in the land that he is going to give them. The body of the book focuses on the conquest and allocation of the land.

The roots of this theme reach back to the dominion blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. The ability to carry out dominion over the earth as intended by God was lost apart from redemption.

The promise of land was given to the Israelites as a part of God’s redemptive plan. Like the original dominion blessing, the promised land was given by God, but the recipients were to act on the gift to bring it to fruition.

Joshua shows the dominion blessing in the context of the Fall. The land must be conquered from human enemies who have corrupted the land with their sin. The sinners are to be exterminated from the land, and God’s people are to live in the land in accordance to God’s covenant regulations. In this way the nations will be able to see what a land under righteous dominion looks like.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua

January 19, 2009 in Biblical Theology, Joshua with 0 Comments

Theme: God’s people must exercise good and wise dominion over the land that God promised and gave them by exterminating God’s enemies and by living in obedience to God’s covenant.

Place in Redemptive History: Joshua advances the story of God’s plan of redemption by telling of the fulfillment of aspects of the land promise to Abraham and his seed. The land promise gave God’s people the space to live out the Dominion Blessing in a fallen world.

Page 1 of 41234»