« Studies in John (Lesson 14: Golgotha) | Main | Images of the Savior (16 – His Works on the Sabbath) »
In Pursuit of a Macro-Cosmic Biblical Theology
By pitchford | March 27, 2007
To many people, the very idea of a comprehensive, or macro-cosmic biblical theology is a little strange. Biblical theology by its very definition is less than comprehensive, is it not? Biblical theology has to do with the study of the revelation of a particular era, a particular biblical author, or so on. Whatever else, it is, it cannot be macro-cosmic: a macro-cosmic view of revelation is the domain of systematic theology; and biblical theology is concerned with developing the building blocks of systematic theology. Once it starts putting those blocks together, it has gone beyond the realm of its appropriate employment, and can no longer be designated “biblical theology” at all. At that point, it is something else.
So many theologians would assume today – or at least the character of their writings gives that impression. But from the beginning, this was not so. When John Owen published his monumental and prototypical Biblical Theology, he included in its pages an account of revelation from beginning to end. When Jonathan Edwards conceived of an educational approach based on biblical, and not systematic theology, he developed his comprehensive History of the Work of Redemption to facilitate the vision. From the beginning of its prominence, biblical theology sought nothing less than a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the unfolding of God’s plans throughout history. In fact, the terms “biblical theology” and “redemptive history” were, for all practical purposes, synonyms.
Today, this is not the case – but in a way, that is a good thing. The serious biblical theologian of today simply cannot concern himself in detail with all of redemptive history, for the tradition of outstanding scholarship upon which he stands has served to multiply exponentially the amount of information needed to contribute intelligently to the ongoing discussion. In order to add something valuable, one has to limit his area of expertise to some specific field. However, while that good outcome has made itself felt, the unfortunate side-effect is that the very idea of a comprehensive biblical theology has been forgotten. And I fear that this incidental effect has had certain harmful results in the discipline of biblical theology, across the board. My desire is not that today’s biblical theologians would all attempt to approach their task macro-cosmically, as did Owen or Edwards; but I would like to see a more general acknowledgment that the task of biblical theology is not done until the findings of any one particular branch have been intelligently incorporated into the broader understanding of redemptive history as a whole.
This desire, I must confess, has enormous obstacles to overcome: for it is not only hindered by the rise of areas of particular expertise within the discipline of biblical theology; but also, by the very nature of the hermeneutics now employed, as a general rule, within biblical and systematic theology alike. What do I mean by this? Well, the modern accepted definition of hermeneutics is that its goal is to discover what the human author meant to convey to his original audience. Determine that much, and the task of exegesis is done – all that remains is the systematization of the results of that exegesis into a comprehensive systematic theology, or else the application of those results to the modern Christian. However, this definition of hermeneutics is severely lacking – and in proportion as it is accepted in the discipline of biblical theology, it struggles against every hope of a comprehensive redemptive history. If exegesis ends with the understanding of the original audience, then we cannot understand any portion of biblical revelation in any way more clearly or distinctly than the state of revelation had advanced to at that time. Neither can we apply our exegesis in any way which demands a fuller knowledge of redemptive history than the saints of that era possessed.
But these hermeneutically-imposed limitations have several difficulties. For instance, how can we know to what extent the believers of any era understood the Christ-centered truths of divine revelation? After all, the Spirit who illuminates us illuminated them to things that could not have been grasped by the natural mind (see I Corinthians 2:9-13); and furthermore, we do not know the extent to which religious knowledge had been passed down from old to the newer generations of believers. How much of substitutionary sacrifice did God explain to Adam, after the Fall? How much did Adam pass down to Abel, or Seth? How much did Seth pass down through the generations to Noah, and so on? We simply cannot determine, with definite accuracy, the amount of understanding that the original audience of believers in the Messiah would have had, in any stage of redemptive history: and so this exegetical premise, even if it were valid, would be impractical. But at that, it is not even valid. Paul tells us that the Spirit had revealed things in the scriptures which would not be understood until gospel times (Romans 16:25-27); and Peter tells us that even the prophets themselves did not know all the contingent circumstances of their prophecies which we, as believers this side of the cross, may know (I Peter 1:10-12). In sum, this hermeneutical principle, as legitimate as it sounds, greatly errs in that it makes the human authors of the bible of more practical importance than the divine Author who inspired the whole account as one unified story, and saw fit to foreshadow in some eras what he would later say explicitly. If we would pursue a legitimate, macro-cosmic biblical theology, we must give more precedence to the divine author than to the human authors of the bible.
I would admit that the goal of modern biblical theology, in determining the mindset and understanding of the original audience as fully as possible, has definite value. It can greatly help us in our understanding of the history of revelation; for instance, the reason that the crowds responded the way they did to Jesus, and the reason he answered them as he did, is illuminated to a great extent by the research of biblical theology, even as it employs the hermeneutic mentioned above. However, I would suggest that the findings of this micro-cosmic biblical theology still need something before they may be profitable. Until we place those findings within the context of redemptive history, we cannot employ them as we ought. And we cannot appropriately place them in their context until we recognize, under and behind the human authors and audiences, the divine author of all of scriptures. So now, to make these abstract assertions more understandable, let’s take as an example the modern biblical theologian’s insight into the phrase “the Son of Man,” as employed within the gospels, and seek to understand how his valuable research might be better employed to reach the audience of largely uneducated Christians.
The typical popular author or preacher, when he sees the phrase “Son of Man,” will assume that it refers to the fact that Jesus was born of Mary, and so preach about Jesus’ true humanity. Furthermore, when he sees the phrase “Son of God,” he will assume it to mean “God the Son,” and will preach about Jesus’ divinity and eternal generation from the Father. However, the biblical theologian will object (and rightly so) that this preacher is entirely missing the point that Jesus was making by employing these terms. In the days when Jesus preached in Judea, the people as a whole were looking for a Messiah – but for a different kind of Messiah than Jesus was going to be. The were looking for “The Son of David,” or “The Messiah” (which is, in Greek, “the Christ”), or “The Son of God,” but they understood him to be a different sort of conqueror than Jesus actually was. So why did Jesus use for himself the term “Son of Man” more than any of those more common terms? It was probably just so that he could infuse it with his own teaching and example of what the Messiah should be, apart from massive popular misconceptions. The title “the Son of Man,” came from Daniel 7:13-14, and describes the one who would be sent by God to accomplish redemption for his people. It was a Messianic term, but one that was not in current usage in Jesus’ day. So Jesus took it as his predominant title, so that he might teach what it meant to be “the Son of Man” (that is, “the Christ”), in a way that would not be misunderstood by the common person. Using this term, he taught about a Christ that was basically a conflation of the eternally-reigning Davidic King (commonly called “the Son of God”) and the humble and afflicted Servant of the Lord, whom people then saw as different and manifestly irreconcilable persons. Biblical theologians have corrected this misunderstanding, and given us some valuable insight into Jesus’ use of that term.
However, in the process, many biblical theologians have entirely stripped the term of the obvious overtones of humanity that it carried even before Jesus’ incarnation. This title, they insist, may not be used to teach of Jesus’ humanity; and in fact, it may even be helpful to re-translate it as “the Sent One,” or some such equivalent phrase. After all, this is how Jesus used the term, and this is how his audience would have understood him.
The problem with this approach is that it limits our understanding of a rich and meaningful term to the misunderstanding of Jesus’ contemporary audience. Is it really appropriate to refuse any insight from its Danielic origin, in which a clearly divine and eternal figure is named “Son of Man,” hinting at the taking on of human nature by divinity in pursuit of the Messianic task? Is it appropriate to refuse to take account of any later usage of this term in epistolary or apocalyptic literature, as we seek its full meaning in the gospels? Yes, Jesus’ contemporary audience had a certain idea associated with the various Christological titles used of him, yes, those associations influenced his decision of what to call himself on different occasions, and yes, that interplay may help us understand why certain dialogues unfolded the way they did. But when we use information that gives us insight into the historical background of a book or passage to delimit the meaning inherent in the terminology employed to that precise period, we have transgressed the bounds of appropriate and beneficial usage of biblical-theological information.
So what do we suggest? Take the biblical-theological insights into contemporary understanding and psychology seriously, but recognize that those findings will not be particularly valuable until they are given their place in the context of redemptive history. The gospel audience may inform our understanding of Jesus’ “Son of Man” self-titling, but ultimately, until we place that term within a broader context, one which speaks of the condescension of God to take upon himself human flesh in pursuit of his Messianic-redemptive work, we will be benefited little thereby. Similarly, Jesus’ “Son of God” title may be enriched by contemporary Messianic expectation, but to use that contemporary understanding to deny its ever meaning “God the Son” is to deny the whole for the sake of the part. Micro-cosmic biblical theology certainly has a place – but its place is not realized until it has been designated within the flow of redemptive history, and informed by previous and subsequent revelation which pertains to it. In this particular, we have much to learn (or re-learn) from Owen and Edwards.
Topics: Articles, Hermeneutics |
March 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Nathan,
I honestly have never thought of “Son of Man” referring to his humanity. Maybe I have done the other extreme and focused to much on the Daniel context.
Also, I thought by nature biblical theology was “macro” in nature. Sure there are themes such as the Kingdom of God or Old Creation/New Creation, but I always thought of it as “big picture” look at the Scriptures.
As always, it was very challenging and edifying.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Chris,
Glad to hear your perspective, especially on the “big-picture” conception of biblical theology. Maybe I just had a different perspective because of where I went to college, etc. Hopefully, there are more people than I realize who think “redemptive history” when they hear “biblical theology”.
Thanks for the feedback — it’s always helpful.
Nathan
March 29th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Nathan,
Fabulous post. Absolutely loved it. It really explained how the redemptive history approach differs from other non-dispensational hermeneutic approaches. Again allowing God to be the actual Author does much for helping one accept the intentional foreshadowings in the OT.
Thanks much for this. God bless you brother,
Bob Hayton
March 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
While we are on this topic, do you have any articles or books you can recommend on this approach other than Edwards and Owen??
Thanks
March 30th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Bob,
I just heard from Baylor that a guy named Yarbrough (I believe from TEDS) wrote a book called The Redemptive Historical Fallacy? on biblical theology, in which he addresses objections to redemptive-historical hermeneutics. I don’t know anything about the guy, but it sounds really good. I’ve also been hearing good things about Graeme Goldsworthy, but I have not read him either.
Just on the topic of hermeneutics, not necessarily biblical theology, Vern Poythress has some phenomenal articles on frame-poythress.org. Many of them are excellent, but the one that currently stands out in my memory has something to do with “the presence of God qualifying our notions of a literal interpretation”. I’m sure the article is not called precisely that, but look for an article in which “the presence of God” appears, in some way connected with the idea of qualification.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Bob,
I have the unpleasant task of informing you that I went to find that article by Poythress, and was informed on his site that it was “withdrawn for publication”. I’m glad that it will be published, but that still really sucks for you — it was absolutely phenomenal. I’ll try to give you a little comfort with the fact that he had a couple dozen other articles on the topic still on the page. You should write him a tear-stained e-mail, begging and pleading with him to grace you with a copy…
March 30th, 2007 at 5:53 am
If that article shows up somewhere I would profit from it. (Pretty please.)
March 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
There are Biblical Theologians out there who happily stand against the grain. Graeme Goldsworthy, who has already been mentioned, almost single-handedly redeemed the discipline for me. Read whatever of his you can get your hands on, especially “Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,” “Gospel and Kingdom” and “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutic.” He definitely operates in the macro, and laments up and down the fact that most biblical theologies refuse to encompass both Testaments. The nice thing about Goldsworthy is that he is so readable, unlike Geerhardus Vos; but in his own right, Vos, the very father of conservative Biblical Theology is pretty holistic. Also check out Stephen Dempster’s “Dominion and Dynasty.”
I agree, Nathan, that what you described has tended to be a problem, these notable exceptions aside. A lot of it, I dare to suggest, is birthed out of a sort of academic elitism, which is fascinated with extrabiblical, reconstructed Ancient Near Eastern worldviews which unlock faddish and almost gnostic but ultimately trivial “insights” into texts and go no further. In the mileu of this elitism, to lean on the Spirit and take Christ at His Word when He speaks of Himself as summative revelation — His own hermeneutic for the rest of Scripture — is not going to win a lot of points for creativity. But I believe we run into trouble and belittle the weightiness of the Word wherever Christian theologians and preachers do not take their little themes, little insights, little connections and blow them up so that they bear the weight of all of God’s revelation to us, especially the revelation of Christ, and place us in the sweep of God’s redemptive purposes from Eden to the New Earth so that our lives take on meaning and purpose. In practical terms, let’s wear Nathan’s words as a challenge not to write theological or exegetical papers which are (of necessity) nuanced and narrow without at some point backing up and helping readers take in the bigger picture…
March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Ryan,
Thanks for the further info. I’m hearing of more and more exceptions to the “academic elitist” trends in bt, which is very encouraging. I really do need to get my hands on some of Goldsworthy’s stuff, but unfortunately, my current situation does not lend itself to the ready acqusition of theological works.
If anyone finds out in what work Poythress’ article will be published, please let us know — it is a paper which definitely calls for a wider audience.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Thanks guys for the recommendations. I found a link where you can send an email to the Evangelical Theological Society to request copies of that paper that Poythress presented in the Annual 2005 meeting. It wasn’t published in JETS for 2005, though. (By the way articles since the 60s all the way thru the third quarter of 2005 are available online for free at the evangelical theological society’s website).
If that email request doesn’t work, I’ll email Vern Poythress directly. I do have one book by Goldsworth: According to Plan an introduction to Biblical Theology. I plan on reading it soon.
Again thanks for the discussion.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Bob,
What is that link?
April 5th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Nathan,
Here is the link. On that page you can click on the name of Poythress’ paper and that will start your email going.
Or copy the link (right click and copy shortcut) and paste it somewhere. The link has the email address and the subject line that they want.
Hopefully that makes sense for you. (Still no response yet, by the way. Not sure if this is an active web page meant for us to use or not.)
April 5th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Thanks for the link.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I’m currently studying at your alma mater, Nathan, and I can say with some degree of confidence that the average, theologically-oriented upperclassman thinks “salvation-historical big-picture” when BT comes up.
This is due, largely, to one professor who is marked by this perspective, and whose approach to the related controversy is something other than what you associate with the school.
If you you’d like to talk about that further, I’d be glad to, privately.
Goldsworthy’s “According to Plan” and Dempster’s “Dominion and Dynasty” have both been mentioned, as have Vos and Edwards.
I would also commend Kaiser’s “The Promise Plan of God” as excellent, despite his flat hermeneutic.
The introduction to Sailhammer’s “Pentatuche as Narrative” does a good job of relating the Pentatuche to the “big picture,” although I’ve heard that the ensuing commentary is hit-and-miss.
I haven’t read Dever’s “The Message of the OT” (which is a reworked compilation of his sermons), but, I’m told that it traces the OT in very much the way we’re discussing.
Other holistic approaches that have been recommended to me include the introduction to Waltke’s OT Theology, and Trevor Mcllwain’s “Firm Foundations: Creation to Christ” which is a missional telling of God’s story (often used in tribal missions).
One last recommendation, which is likely to be met with some skepticism, is Blaising and Bock’s “Progressive Dispensationalism.” Do not be turned off by the D-word!–this isn’t your grandpa’s dispensationalism!
In fact, in my opinion, this isn’t dispensationalism at all (and I’m not the only one to think so… scholars from all quarters have said that B&B need to drop the d-word).
As an ex-dispensationalist (like you, Nathan), I heartily recommend this book as excellent.
One or two hundred years ago, many Premill. Covenantalists treated OT Kingdom passages as Millennial in nature* (without denying the current and spiritual nature of the Kingdom which Jesus inaugurated)… Well, think of this sort of Covenantalist, add a NCT view of Law and Sabbath, throw in Berkoff’s use of the word “dispensation,” and you’ve got PD as presented by B&B.
Anyways, to get to the point, their book is another excellent treatment of the “big picture.”**
*Today, most go the George Ladd route, treating Rev. 20 as the first revelation of the Millennium.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:32 am
June 20th, 2009 at 6:35 am
For a great treatment of PD hermeneutics, see Bock’s three part contribution to Bib Sac, “Evangelicals and the NT Use of the OT,” or better yet, his third of Zondervan’s recent “Three Views on the NT Use of the OT.”
June 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Thanks for the info. and added suggestions, Scott.