Source: http://livinghopepres.org/author/clark/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:10:47+00:00

Document:
As we make our way through the Gospel of John, we approach chapter 7, where we’ll find our Lord in the context of a particular Jewish feast, the Feast of Tabernacles. What is this feast? What’s it all about?
Well, it’s one of the 3 major festivals that Israelite males were expected to attend. It comes at the time of the fruit harvest. Grapes and olives would be in abundance. Most of the festivals were somber, but not this one. It was a party. Or, more appropriately, it was a joyous celebratory feast. But why? What does it mean? What were the Israelites supposed to think, feel or do at this time?
They were supposed to construct temporary shelters, lean-tos. And they were supposed to live in them for the week of the feast. It was a reminder of the time of their sojourn in the wilderness. They had nothing except what God’s hand had provided on their way out of Egypt. And they didn’t have access to food or water or directions. In every way they were dependent on the Lordship, the faithful provision and protection and direction of the God who brought them out of slavery in Egypt.
So, now that the harvest is in—, now that you have stable homes to dwell in, just as God promised—, you are to celebrate and remember: Celebrate that God is faithful to fulfill his promises. Celebrate that God is faithful to provide for us. And remember that you are still sojourners. You have no real ownership here. Why would you seek it? This age, like your lean-to, is fleeting. And all that you need comes from my hand.
Rejoice in the fact that you sojourn here. Nothing in this age, fleeting and ephemeral as it is, is worth clinging to or laying claim to. All that is needful for this age comes at the hand of the God who purchased you. And he feeds you with his bounty not because he must, but because he wants to.
The sacrificial ritual in the festival is not terribly complex, but it has a pattern to it. For each of the following sacrifices, grain offerings and drink offerings accompanied the whole burnt offerings: Bread and wine to go with the meat of the meal.
I’m not entirely sure what God is teaching us with respect to the descending number of bulls and the shift that occurs on the eighth day. But it is very evident that Israel is being fed at the King’s table. The Lord is sharing the bounty of his table with them in a meal — a covenant meal.
And as he does so, he reminds them that they are guests at His table. They must leave their homes and dramatically demonstrate their position in the relationship, by living in tents. They received his bounty in the wilderness. They didn’t recognize it as bounty then, of course. They grumbled and complained incessantly. Now that they are in the land, God wants to make sure they know that their position in the relationship hasn’t changed. They have gained no independence from him. They are still as dependent as before. They construct temporary shelters to remind them that where they are and what they have is a provision of their Heavenly Father —Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17 ESV) And as they look on the plenty around them, celebrating with the fruits of the harvest and gorging on plenty, what they are supposed to see is God’s faithful provision, according to His promise.
Our God is faithful. Jesus Christ is faithful. And when we stop whining and grumbling long enough to look at what he has done and is doing for us, we will be amazed at our bounty. Israel could not appreciate the fact that the whip no longer cut their backs. They could only see that their breadbaskets were empty. Can you see that the Son of God bore your shame? What blinds you to Jesus’ bounty?
And if we should be enjoying abundance while ignoring our Host, who provides and guides us still, is that not an even greater apostasy? May the Spirit of our Lord bring us to repentance. May He open our eyes to how small and insignificant and weak and dependent we are, that we might learn to appreciate how faithful and true and powerful and holy God is. He’s proven it all in Jesus.
If you are interested in further study, you can find relevant passages at Exod. 23:14-19; 34:22-24; Lev. 23:33-36, 39-43; Num. 29:12-38; Deut. 16:16-17; 31:9-13.
adapted from WTS seminary notes of Doctrine of Christ, Richard B. Gaffin (ST223, February- 1996) for M.E.A.T.
In our second ‘meating’, we placed Christology within Systematic Theology. We saw that the Whole of Scripture is about Jesus. Therefore, nothing can be excluded from our inquiry … every jot and tittle is relevant. Christology, in short, is at the center of all systematic theology, because it is at the center of God’s revelation.
But within that “center of the center”, there is something that lies yet further in … at the heart of the heart, so to speak.
☞ “the death and resurrection of Christ.” That is the center of the center.
The forgiveness of my sins.
The experience of being forgiven.
Now, that is absolutely crucial to the reality and significance of the Gospel, which we must maintain against all forms of denial. But the benefit flowing from the death and resurrection … that’s not what’s central … Neither the true deity of Christ nor the true experience of the benefit constitutes the center of our concern, but the death and the resurrection.
Again, our method is radically non-speculative … so where do we get that?
This is the most explicit summary Paul provides of his gospel preaching as a whole. And he tells the Corinthians what is most important, at least to him … ἐν πρώτοις, “as of first importance” — “Here is what is most important to me”. What is it? The death and resurrection of Jesus.
But it’s not just of private importance … important to Paul … It is of first-order importance because Paul recognizes Christ’s death as fulfilling the scriptures, and therefore lying at the very center of redemptive history as a whole.
With regard to the verses that have a single referent — cross or resurrection — we need to remember that in the New Testament a reference to the death alone or the resurrection, these references are always synecdochic. That is, a reference to the one always implies the other.
When you come to the rest of the New Testament, while there may not be expressions that are explicit or programmatically clear, yet unmistakable indications are there.
Hebrews is concerned with God’s last days’ speech — God’s eschatological speech in His Son (Heb 1:1-2). But as the writer goes on to develop in the light of this opening statement, it is clear that this last-days’ speech centers in the High Priestly ministry of Christ. It is particularly as Christ is the great High Priest that He is God’s speech in these last days. That High Priestly ministry of Christ, he makes clear, has two facets — sacrifice on earth in the past and present heavenly intercession. Christ as High Priest is to be seen in His suffering and glory. This is how we should understand Heb. 13:8 (Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever) — this is not to be taken as a proof text for an affirmation of the eternity of Christ in terms of His true deity — though that is true –but as an affirmation of His fidelity as High Priest. As High Priest He is constant. In the past on earth, in the present in heaven, and in the future in His return to earth forever.
In a passage obviously dear to Living Hope, as our very name is taken from it, Peter provides us with a message, according to 1:3, that turns on a birth to hope … a new birth unto a living hope that the church has been given in terms of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Everything, the hope of the church, flows from the crucified and resurrected Christ.
All the various visions of Revelation flow out of the great vision of Revelation 1:12-17 … A vision of the GLORIFIED Son of Man in the midst of the seven golden lampstands (i.e., in the midst of the church). Everything flows out of what is true of the exalted Christ in the midst of the Church — that is the central reality of the Book of Revelation: Who the exalted Jesus is in the midst of the Church.
So … we can say that the New Testament in its various parts, in its center on Christ, is centered more particularly on His death and resurrection, His suffering and glory.
The death and resurrection of Christ as the center of the Old Testament is a much more problematic point. It is widely denied, by modern theology and by modern dispensationalism — viewpoints that, in other respects are poles apart from each other.
For Modern Theology (in the historical-critical tradition): The Old Testament is sub-Christian, or even more radically, anti-Christian.
the destiny of the church is parallel, within the mind of God, but not integral to the promises of God to the nation of Israel.
What happened was for them because of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah.
The writers of the New Testament, in contrast see no such disjunction in the Old Testament, but rather that the suffering and glory are at the center of the Old Testament. The’re not just there, but at the center.
The angle we will take to look at Old Testament is the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament. That is, we will see how the apostolic age understood the the work of Christ vis-à-vis the Old Testament.
These verses are important, standing as they do at the close of Luke’s Gospel, and intended to give us a cross-sectional view of the time between the resurrection and the ascension, to show what was typical of Jesus’ teaching during this 40 day period of time. We have here a succinct account of the Post-Resurrection teaching of Jesus. What went on during those 40 days have been compressed into the span of a few verses.
Now what supports this understanding, is that in terms of the time markers, everything through v.43 clearly happens on the day of the resurrection. On the other side of our unit we are at the account of the ascension. But our unit is without time markers.
So in an unspecified way, this falls within that period, It can be taken, then, as a summary, what was typical of the time. I want to accent this here, because it will reinforce a later point.
This is a clear reference to the suffering and resurrection of the Messiah. And coordinate with it, is the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins to the nations. There are 3 Elements to the Old Testament teaching, according to Jesus: Death, resurrection, preaching to the nations. What is the consequence of preaching the gospel to the nations? Church. So … “It is written…Death, Resurrection, Church.” That’s the Old Testament.
Death, Resurrection and Church are syntactically dependent on “is written” (gegraptai). Grammatically, this form introduces a construction in which the subjects are in the accusative and the verb is in the infinitive. Like, “it is written him to die and to rise, and the gospel to be proclaimed” Suffer, Rise, and Gospel preached, are all dependent on ‘it is written’. And this form “it is written,” a Perfect Passive Indicative (γέγραπται) is one of the standard formulas for citing Scripture, to introduce quotations from the Hebrew Bible.
So Jesus is telling the disciples, “This is what is written in the Old Testament, messianic suffering, resurrection, and Church”.
We can’t find a particular passage, or a particular set of verses that expresses all of this. Now, certain psalms and the latter part of Isaiah surely picture the individual elements. But no passage captures them all together. So we have to take Gegraptai, then, in a more general sense here.
In what sense is it more general? How much looser, more general, is it? Here is where the immediately preceding verses help us (vv 44,45).
Jesus is speaking as he had not previously, but in a post-resurrection perspective, from the vantage point of the death and resurrection being behind him. And what he is doing is recalling his teaching to his disciples “these are my words” during the period of his ministry prior to the resurrection. The resurrected Christ looking back synoptically. “While I was still with you” brings out the climactic character of the resurrection. It is as if he were no longer with them, even though he is there talking to them. This does not represent a stable state of affairs redemptive-historically. These 40 days are temporary; the Resurrected Christ must go to a place of glory, at the right hand of God. What is implicit is the transitional nature of this period (You may remember Joh 20.17 – to Mary Magdalene – do not cling to me).
Jesus’ point here concerns what is the sum and substance of his teaching while he was with them. That substance is caught in a “that” clause at the end of v. 44: These were my words … THAT FULFILLMENT WAS NECESSARY … The necessary fulfillment of all the things that were written in the Law, Prophets and Psalms concerning Jesus himself. What Jesus is reminding his disciples here is how the Old Testament in all its subdivisions prophesies concerning Him. Look back to v. 27, And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27 ESV) There we have the same description (not as fully expressed) as what Jesus gave on the Emmaus road. So Jesus is saying, “What I taught you (as a whole) is what the Old Testament in all its parts teaches concerning me”.
What is the force of “in” in v. 44? Does the prepositional phrase (which controls at least to the end of psalms) circumscribe the entire Old Testament in all its parts with no remainder, or only to certain strands of the Old Testament, along with other teaching? That is, is Jesus leaving any material out? No … this is comprehensively inclusive.
First, verses 44-49 are Luke’s way of summarizing what happened during the 40 day period, in terms of teaching, and he wishes to show that it was a period of comprehensive instruction.
If this is so, it is not very likely that parts of the Old Testament would have remained pushed to the side, that sections would have remained a closed book.
Secondly, and more decisively, what is said in v. 45 “he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures”. The movement in thought from 44 to 45, that helps us understand the mind opening experience, is this: What Jesus had taught during his earthly ministry is now made clear to the disciples. The gospel record gives several indications that the disciples (earlier) were not able to comprehend, even afraid to ask what Jesus meant by death and resurrection (Lk 9:22, 44-45; Lk 18: 31-34). What the disciples were then unable to comprehend, that is now made clear to them. The resurrected Jesus opens their minds. He brings them to understanding.
Notice, now, how v. 45 describes their understanding. It is said to be an understanding of Scripture. V. 45 does not say he opened their minds to understand these Scriptures, a particular aspect of Old Testament revelation, a set of Scriptures within the Old Testament. Rather, he opened their minds to understand THE Scriptures. The entire Old Testament, as a whole. Tas grafas (the scriptures) is a term that always refers to the whole of the Old Testament (even in extra-biblical judaic writings). See, e.g., Mt 22:29; John 5:39; Acts 17:2.
In other words, in the light of the resurrection, from the perspective of fulfillment in Christ, the disciples are now, for the first time brought to an understanding of what Jesus had all along been saying in his earthly ministry about the necessary fulfillment of Scripture. And their new understanding is said to be an understanding of the Scriptures. Putting it anachronistically, Jesus opened the mind of the disciples to understand the consent of all the parts the scope of the whole (WCF Ch. 5). The are brought to understand how it all holds together, the coherence, the unity of the Old Testament (which, you may recall, is the goal of Systematic Theology).
Coming back to vv. 46-47, these verses add, by way of further specification, further focussing what it means that they understand the Scriptures. That focussing is the death, resurrection and church-building gospel. So Death, resurrection and church-building gospel are at the center, the heart of the overall message of the Old Testament. This is the focus of what the Old Testament is all about.
This preaching always culminates in a call to repentance. In biblical categories, faith is included in repentance … Turning from/Turning to … We can make distinctions in theology, but we cannot force the biblical text to use our dogmatic vocabulary with the same semantic delineation.
More importantly, though, that call always flows from a focus on the death, but especially the resurrection of Christ. The repeated emphasis in this gospel message is that it is preached on the basis of Scripture.
The things which were previously proclaimed through the mouth of all the prophets that his Christ must suffer, these things are now fulfilled. So the messianic suffering of Christ is a matter that came through the mouth of ALL the prophets. That way of putting it is even more emphatic when you move to v. 24: Jesus is identified as the great prophet promised in Deuteronomy.
All the prophets…also proclaimed these days. Surely “these days”, in the context, are the days of Jesus Christ, the days of the activity of this great prophet foreseen by Moses.
Prophetic tradition going from Moses through the former and through the latter prophets. As many as spoke. Whatever prophet ever opened his mouth, this is what he spoke about…”these days”.
You can find a similar statement from Peter in Acts 10:43.
Therefore, having obtained help, the help which is from God, until this day, I stand testifying both to small and to great (insignificant and significant) saying nothing except those things which Moses and the Prophets said would come to pass: that Christ would suffer, rise, and then proclamation would be made to the Gentiles.
The setting is a point where the bulk of Paul’s missionary activity is behind him. He is in interrogation before Agrippa. And he is taking his whole missionary activity in view.
We can look at this from several mutually related angles. But first, Peter is reflecting concerning the salvation that he’s been describing fully in vv. 3-9, the salvation that is predicated on the resurrection of Christ (v. 3).
So he has in view, a salvation that is present, that is staked in an accomplished death and resurrection, but will involve the future as well (for an inheritance…kept in heaven…). He is looking at what will be true at the return of Christ, the revelation that will take place at his return (v. 7). Salvation in its already/not yet dimensions, comprehensively considered, is in view.
First, This salvation is said to be a concern or preoccupation of the prophets (v. 10).
It is not a passing curiosity of them, but an intensive concern (ek compounds on the verbs that have to do with investigating, searching, inquiry–ek intensifies). The NIV and ESV are good here, NIV “intently” … ESV “carefully”.
In view of the scope of the salvation, we can say that this intense concern was also a central concern, an all-embracing preoccupation that they had. It’s fair then to suggest at least that, even though Peter is referring specifically to prophets, that reference is synecdochic, representative of the whole. So what he is saying would apply more broadly to the Old Testament. We see such a synecdochic reference in 2 Peter 1:19-21. We don’t want to push it, but it seems to be a fair proposal.
Secondly, What the prophets in their plurality say is unified, integrated.
And we can say that because as v. 11 makes clear, in what the prophets in their plurality are concerned about, that is ultimately a matter that the one Spirit is disclosing, indicating through each of them.
We get an anticipation of our third point in the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. Christ’s Spirit, the Spirit as associated with the messiah is who is at work in the Old Testament prophecy.
Thirdly, In v. 11 we have further an indication as to where the sum of the prophetic concern can be located, the focus. We saw Peter’s reference in v. 10 as, on the one hand, comprehensive of the prophets, then integrated/unified. Now we see the focus of this body of prophecy is specifically the sufferings of the Christ and the glory that would follow, death and resurrection. So again in this context, humiliation/exaltation is central to what the Old Testament is teaching.
Fourthly, Notice what is brought out in v. 12. Perhaps most emphatically in New Testament, Peter is now saying, “they did it for you.” They were not ultimately serving themselves, although they were intensively involved (v. 10). Their ministry is not for the Old Covenant “we”, but the New Covenant “you”. Which is to say then, that it is ultimately considered the New Testament Church that is served by the Old Testament prophets.
This is one passage that makes a point that we must never lose sight of: The Old Testament belongs to the Church, not to the Jews (whether Dispensational Christian structure or Zionistic Jewish).
According to the New Testament, the Old Testament is one large witness to Christ. The Old Testament taken as a whole, we’ve been able to see from the vantage point of the New Testament is one large prophetic witness to the Christ, centering on the messianic suffering and glory, death and resurrection. The Old Testament has its integrity in terms of this death and resurrection focus. This is how the various parts hang together/cohere.
On the one hand, we must avoid restricting reference to Christ to a limited number of passages (those that are seen from a New Testament point of view to be clearly messianic) as though the rest of the Old Testament has nothing to do with these passages … as if, alongside the message of Death and Resurrection of Christ is a message that is unrelated.
On the other hand, we must also avoid viewing every Old Testament text as if it had a Christological message of its own; or even more problematic, treating every Old Testament text as teaching some specific point about the death and resurrection. This sort of outlook inevitably results in uncontrolled allegory that is always looking behind things in the Old Testament for a presumably deeper meaning. On this approach, Old Testament interpretation becomes a kind of Old Testament scavenger hunt. Who can discover the most subtle Christological types and allusions?
Is Christ in every sentence of the Old Testament? … Yes and No. If we mean that in the atomistic sense, that every text has a Christological message all its own, then the answer is no. However, every sentence is in a context. That context, as we have already discovered, is a history. Every sentence is embedded in the ongoing history of God’s covenant dealings with his people Israel, as that can involve the various genres. That history has only one direction/purpose, which centers in the sufferings and glory of Christ. So in that sense, we must say Christ is in every sentence of the Old Testament.
So … Christology is at the center of Systematic Theology, because Christology is the foundation, center, and end or purpose for the whole of scripture.
And what lies at the heart of Christology is the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the establishment of his church through the call to repentance and faith.
How does the fact that death/resurrection/church encompass the warp and woof of scripture, the fact that every jot and tittle of scripture is driving toward or reflecting on the death and resurrection of Christ, and the church that is founded on it … How does that affect the way you read your Bible?
How does Dispensationalism’s failure to see the unity of scripture at this most central point affect the way it reads prophecy particularly? How does that affect their conclusions in the very field of dogmatics for which they are most famous ( eschatology)?
How does the fact that the proclamation of the gospel is as central to the whole of history and scripture and life and hope … as is the death and resurrection of Christ … How does that fact affect your desire to proclaim the gospel to family, friends, co-workers, strangers?
Remember, this is a retooling of a class I took in Seminary under Dr. Gaffin. I am not careful in it to distinguish his work or wording from my own.
As we set out on our journey through the “Doctrine of Christ”, we thought it best to discover what we mean by “doctrine”. Broadly, when we are talking about “doctrine”, we are doing theology … a combination of theos (God) and logos (word or speech or knowledge). We are … “speaking about God”, “telling what we know about God”.
But there are a number of approaches to God-speak … or theology. In the theological enterprise, you’ll traditionally find four basic “branches” of theology. The differences between them, among other things, is a difference of perspective: Where are you standing as you make your observations about God?
In Exegetical Theology, you are appreciating the unfolding nature of redemptive history. You are interested in the development and sequence of redemptive history. Your perspective is a given textual block. Your perspective is the immediate and historically previous contexts.
In Historical Theology, as you might imagine, you are taking the perspective of a present- day Christian, looking back on the developing understanding of the Bible in the church over time.
You also have practical theology, where you take your own personal perspective of a loving Christian brother, and you are looking for the practical application of all the other branches of theology … what does it mean in my context?
But as we turn to the doctrine of Christ, we are engaging in Systematic theology. Systematic Theology is a topical approach to God’s self-revelation in Scripture, particularly scripture as a whole. Topical and Bible as a whole are the key terms here. What does the (whole) Bible teach about a given topic?
In this respect, Systematic Theology has a pivotal role among the various fields of theology. Systematic Theology lies between exegetical and historical theology on the one hand, and practical theology on the other.
Systematic Theology is characterized by the fact that it brings together … or funnels … the results of … e.g., New Testament studies, church history, history of doctrine, etc., with a view towards the ministerial task of the church in the world. Systematic Theology is fairly seen as a theological clearing house; the processing center for the theological enterprise.
Now Let’s do a bit of reflecting, focusing in on the use of the distinguishing adjective — systematic.
We don’t call it topical theology, but systematic theology. But that choice of this word is not without its problems.
In saying that we are doing Systematic Theology here, this does not mean that the other theological disciplines are unsystematic, lacking in orderliness or methodological procedure.
Nor does it mean that we think of the Bible as a disorganized sourcebook for abstract doctrine, as if Systematic Theology is concerned with establishing order out of biblical material that is lacking in order.
In this view, the task of Systematic Theology becomes something like doing a jigsaw puzzle, arranging the disorderly into an orderly whole as if the Bible does not become coherent until Systematic Theology has done its thing.
When theology is done this way, the system comes to stand above scripture. The humanly crafted system becomes an ultimate end in itself. That often happens in sophisticated and refined ways that are not at all evident, but it happens in order to provide consistency and a systematic comprehensiveness at all costs. If the system is to be valid, it must cover everything; so a difficult or non-conforming Scripture is pushed aside or ignored.
Also, questions can be raised and then answered in terms of the system (in terms of the human speculative-philosophical foundations of the system) that are simply foreign to Scripture — that Scripture does not and is not concerned to address.
This is a “proof-texting” approach in the bad sense, stripping the text from its context to make a point foreign to Scripture.
A Creed or Catechism can be used this way. Though we would never say it in these words, there can be the subtle view that the Confession says it better than the Bible. We are properly committed to creeds and standards — but committed to them as subordinate standards. Below, and not above, the Word of God.
Because of these tendencies and erroneous implications, some prefer the term Dogmatics to Systematic Theology. In general, however, English speakers tend to hold to and prefer the term, “Systematic Theology.” So we’re stuck with it … that’s what we’re doing.
Given the widespread rejection of the Bible’s unity, our terminology emphasizes that unity. For critics, the Bible as a literary whole is seen as a composite of conflicting theologies; characterized by teaching that is unharmonious and even mutually conflicting. Over against that, the adjective Systematic serves to underline the concord and harmony of the teaching of Scripture as a whole.
What is at stake is “the system of doctrine contained in Holy Scripture.” That notion of “the system of doctrine” simply echoes the expression found in 2 Tim. 1:13 — “the pattern of sound words” as Paul puts it. “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 1:13 ESV) He commands Timothy to hold fast to it.
There is a wholeness, an integrity, to the teaching of Scripture. It has coherence, harmony, unity at the level of the whole. To elucidate that unity, to bring that unity and coherence to bear on the life of the church, is the task of Systematic Theology. So the unity of the Bible is a controlling concern for Systematic Theology.
To understand the task and method of Systematic Theology, we must reflect on the unity of Scripture, which is that controlling concern. The unity of the Bible is linguistic, or verbal. It is at the level of the text. The unity is not something hovering beyond the text; we are not talking about some unifying action of the Spirit that takes place as one reads an ultimately discordant text. No, the unity is at the level of the text — it is a verbal, or linguistic unity, a set of self-consistent, non-contradictory propositions.
But to say that the unity of Scripture is linguistic or textual does not yet tell us anything about the unity of Scripture in terms of content or subject matter. When we pose that question — the unity of the Bible materially considered, in terms of content is best or most helpfully described as a Redemptive Historical, or Covenant-Historical unity. And that’s because the Bible, as it is, itself, revelation possesses its unity as it is a record of the revelatory activity of God … of God’s revealing activity as focused on His redemptive activity. There is a correlation between redemptive deed and revelatory word. The focus of the Word is on the Deed. The unity of the Bible arises out of the redemptive revelatory activity that as a whole constitutes a history. The Bible is a record of God’s redemptive and revelatory activity. Altogether it makes up a history, one that begins in the Garden and the fall, but comes to its consummation in the Person and Work of Christ … In the Incarnate Christ.
So in this sense (and only in this sense), the unity of the Bible as a collection of texts, as written documents, does derive from a unity that lies behind the text. It derives from the unity that is inherent in the redemptive acts of God.
There is an organic connection between God’s redemptive activity in history and the scriptures account and explanation of that activity. This understanding of things best explains the diversity in God’s unified plan of redemption.
This is an umbrella declaration that the writer writes to stand over all that he is going to go on to say in the rest of the document. Notice how three inter-related factors come to expression here.
The diversity in that process: It includes different modes of revelation and various literary genre. But the literary serves the redemptive historical. It is in one way or another a record of that redemptive process.
Christ is the end-point of the process, as the eschatological end-point. “In these last days…” This is why in Luke 24.44ff, Jesus explains to his disciples … like he had with the two on the road to Emmaus … that the whole Bible is all about Him.
Now … Given the topical approach of Systematic Theology to the unity of the Bible, it is plain that the method of Systematic Theology is fundamentally exegetical.
That is, because of its interest in the unity of the Bible, Systematic Theology must be radically non-speculative, but rather exegetical. So Systematic Theology is interested in hermeneutics. It is concerned to control its topically oriented formulations by what the Bible actually teaches.
But what is determinative of sound exegesis? Obviously there are number of things we might say. But we must say this: Context is King. This is essential to all proper exegesis. Nothing is more important than that the text be understood in its context. And, since the scriptures are a record of redemptive history, the redemptive historical context is critical.
But attention to this context, to the Redemptive Historical ebb and flow, is the distinguishing concern of Exegetical or Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology regulates the exegesis on which Systematic Theology is dependent. Biblical Theology is the indispensable servant of Systematic Theology. Central to both exegesis and Systematic Theology is the unity of the Bible; that unity, particularly in terms of the content of the Bible, is essentially a Redemptive Historical unity, a unity that exists in an unfolding historical diversity. So the concern of Systematic Theology is that all exegesis do justice to the Redemptive Historical context. If Systematic Theology is to be based on exegesis, then Systematic Theology demands an exegesis controlled by Biblical Theology.
A literary analogy may help.
The teaching of Scripture, taken as a whole, may be compared to a great epic drama, a meta-narrative. Its basic line is the move from Creation through fall to redemption and consummation in Christ. Systematic Theology may then be seen as a kind of single, large-scale plot analysis. Reflection of the various actions in the drama.
What implications should we draw from this introduction?
Biblical Theology … carefully considering the redemptive historical context of any given scriptural text … protects Systematic Theology from the ever-present tendency to abstraction, to de-historicizing, to losing sight of the historical dimension, the essential Redemptive Historical quality of biblical truth.
That is, the topical method disposes us towards timeless formulations about who God is, who man is, what the world is … timeless in the sense that these formulations minimize and perhaps obscure the covenant-historical dynamic by which God relates to the Creation, particularly its image-bearing creature.
An example is WSC Q4: What is God?
“God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.
But these statements about God are not self-evident simply in terms of our speculative capacities or our intuition or our experience. We see these wonderful truths only as we appreciate how these God has shown us these qualities in the history of redemption.
What does it mean that God is love? that God is powerful? Those adjectives of our God only have their true substance as we see them revealed in the moving and unfolding of the history of redemption, and then climactically as they come to expression in the Person and Work of Christ. The attributes of God are always expressed in terms of who God is in what He is doing as Creator and Redeemer.
The scriptures give us the credenda and the agenda. What is to be believed and what is to be done. But the Bible does that only as it is a covenant-historical record, only as it interprets to us what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will do in order to accomplish the redemption of His people in the context of His creation.
Biblical theology also challenges systematic theology not to draw topical compartments too tightly … not to fall into a compartmentalizing mindset, but to see how the various topics interpenetrate each other.
It helps us to see eschatology as more than a sequence of events at the ‘end times’, not simply the last chapter in the Systematic Theology textbook, but as permeating the whole enterprise, cutting across the other topics in a very decisive way, just as Christology does.
So … I know it’s a bit of a slow start, but we need to lay down some foundational principles first. It makes sense to know what we are doing before we start doing it, right?
This time, we considered the nature, the method and the task of systematic theology: To elucidate, through careful exegesis, the redemptive historical unity of the scriptures, bringing it to bear on the life of the church. This is the task and method of Systematic Theology.
Next time, we’ll place Christology as a subdivision within systematic theology.
Working through Who Jesus is and What He has done and what that means for us.
Good Friday and Easter: April 19 and 21st. Join us Friday night at 7pm for a reflection on the crucifixion of our Lord. Then, join us Sunday morning for an Easter worship service, followed by a luncheon for all and egg hunt for the kids.
Boardwalk Chapel Trip: July 20-27. Rising 9th graders and up who are communicant members are invited to apply. Application attached below.
The congregation of Living Hope Presbyterian Church being, on sufficient grounds, well satisfied with the ministerial qualifications of you Timothy Flora, and having good hopes that your ministrations in the gospel will be profitable to our spiritual interests, do earnestly call and desire you to undertake the pastoral office in said congregation; promising you in the discharge of your duty all proper support, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord. And that you may be free from worldly care and employment, we promise and oblige ourselves to pay you the annual sum of $125,847, including medical and hospitalization premiums and a pension, during the time of your being and continuing a regular pastor of this church, as well as four weeks of vacation each year.
Here is a breakdown of that figure.
The housing number is a bit low because Tim purchased his home before the housing spike. We will keep our eyes on his housing situation and make adjustments as necessary over the years. But we are providentially blessed by this low number, which makes this call doable for us.
The life insurance may also need to be increased eventually, but this should get him started.
The health insurance number is close. It should give us room to pursue good coverage. We won’t know actual costs until we acquire the insurance.
Currently, I’m paying for disability insurance. Eventually, we should consider adding that in for both Tim and I.
In terms of adjusting the budget, we need to add $41,949.16 to the 2015 budget, which represents ⅓ (September-December) of the annual added cost ($125,847) of having Tim on staff.
So, we will first vote to call Tim. Then we will vote to approve the budget adjustment, should the former vote require it.
One mistake many evangelicals make is to overstate the discontinuity, the change that takes place in the transition from Old Testament to New Testament. This is most evident when it comes to the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
How did the Holy Spirit function in the lives of believers in the Old Testament? Is the difference between a New Testament believer and an Old Testament believer a matter of one having the Spirit and the other not?
And it is easy to see how misconceptions can arise. Certain texts, read in isolation, can make it sound as if the Holy Spirit didn’t even exist in the Old Testament.
While such language could quite simply be a product of their biblical ignorance, we find a more troublesome statement in John 7:39.
The ESV partially obscures the difficulty. Woodenly translated, the last part of v. 39 reads, “for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” And yet, we know that the Holy Spirit certainly was in existence from (before) the beginning. We see him already active in the creation of the world.
He is, in fact, like the Father and Son, called the creator.
We could, likewise, demonstrate his omniscience, eternality, personality, etc. but this has been done many times, and need not delay us from our main concern, viz., the change that takes place vis-a-vis the Spirit in the New Testament. That is, How did the Holy Spirit function in the lives of believers in the Old Testament? Is the difference between a New Testament believer and an Old Testament believer a matter of one having the Spirit and the other not? Not exactly.
We will return to John 7:39 in a moment. But let’s first look at the promises of the new covenant as we find them in the Old Testament.
God will remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.
That is, God will put a new spirit within them.
That is, God will put the fear of Him in their hearts.
That is, he will write the law upon their hearts.
they will have “one heart and one way”.
That is, they will not turn from God.
That is, they will walk in His statues and keep His rules and obey them.
And Paul picks that image up in Romans 2:28ff.
it follows that Old Testament saints, if there were such, were regenerated by the Holy Spirit, too. So, were there Old Testament saints? Of course.
Since regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit, and faith is a product of regeneration, and since some in the Old Testament had faith, we know that these Old Testament saints were regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
So, what do we do with John 7:39?
To begin with, we should remember that, according to Hebrews 11, the Old Testament saints “saw and greeted from afar” the promise. What changes at the New Testament is not that faith is introduced. And the messiah does not drop into history out of nowhere. As Jesus pointed out in Luke 24:44ff, the entire Bible is about him. The whole Old Testament is about the suffering, resurrection, and gospel proclamation of Jesus Christ. Of course, prior to their fulfillment in the New Testament such promises in the Old Testament were shadowy, lacking full definition. Nevertheless, the promise that, somehow, God would be just and the justifier of the ungodly was there. And Old Testament saints took hold of that promise by faith. And that was the work of the Holy Spirit. So, whatever the difference between the believer’s experience of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and the believer’s experience of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, it is not found in the role that the Holy Spirit plays in regeneration or illumination. Likewise, the Holy Spirit has always restrained the sinfulness of fallen men (cf. Gen 6:3 and 2 Th 2:3-8).
How should we understand the difference noted at the end, that, prior to Pentecost, the Spirit dwelled “with” the disciples, but that when Pentecost comes, he will be “in” them? Take note of the next verse: “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14:18 ESV) When the Spirit is poured out, Jesus comes to them. The Spirit is presently with them in the person of Jesus. But when the Spirit is poured out, it will be in them. But notice that when that happens, Jesus will come to them. For the Spirit to come is for the Christ to come: the non-bodily presence of Jesus.
There are great challenges in John’s writing about the Spirit. My intention here is not to give an exhaustive account of the Holy Spirit, nor even of the shift that occurs at the New Testament. As stated at the beginning, my hope is only to temper the tendency many evangelicals have to radically divorce the New Testament from the Old in terms of the ministry of the Spirit, and perhaps shed a little light on one difficult text.
The best way to understand John 7:39 is not in terms of the individual application of Christ’s benefits to believers. The Spirit has been doing that for as long as men have been forgiven. Rather, we ought to clearly distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption in history, when Christ was born, lived, died, was buried, was raised, ascended, seated and poured out His Spirit … The accomplishment of redemption must be clearly distinguished from the application of redemption.
The best way to understand John 7:39 is not in terms of the individual application of Christ’s benefits to believers. The Spirit has been doing that for as long as men have been forgiven. Rather, we ought to clearly distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption in history, when Christ was born, lived, died, was buried, was raised, ascended, seated and poured out His Spirit … The accomplishment of redemption must be clearly distinguished from the application of redemption. The application of redemption spans both testaments, is individual, and happens over and over as more believers are regenerated. But the accomplishment happens once for all, in history. When John 7:39 speaks of the Spirit ‘becoming’, it should be understood in the same way that Jesus ‘becoming a life-giving Spirit’ (1 Co 15:45) is understood. Inasmuch as Christ had not yet become the Spirit (2 Co 3:17), the Spirit — in that sense — was not yet. In terms of the accomplishment of redemption, the events had not yet transpired. In terms of the application of redemption, Old Testament saints had been receiving the Holy Spirit prospectively from the beginning.
There is discontinuity. And that discontinuity does, in a sense, center on the Spirit being poured out. But we should guard against overstating the case. Believers have always been saved by grace through faith. And that has always been through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. A better approach to grasping the difference, however, lies not in the application of redemption, but in the accomplishment of redemption.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.