Gospel and Kingdom Chapter 4, “Biblical Theology and the History of Redemption”

Three characteristics have now been presented in our search for unity and structure in the

Bible. These are the literary forms, the historical framework, and the theological structures.

Each must be given its due weight and be taken into account in the process of interpreting the biblical text.

Since the really unique feature of the Bible is its revelation of God and of His purposes, its theology, it is unfortunate that so little emphasis is given these days to the study of biblical theology.

We need to be aware of the distinction between Christian doctrine and biblical theology. The approach to biblical interpretation adopted in this book is based on the method of biblical theology.

Christian doctrine, systematic or dogmatic theology, involves a systematic gathering of the doctrines of the

Bible under various topics to form a body of definitive Christian teaching about humanity, sin, grace, the church, sacraments, ministry, and so on.

This systematizing of theology depends for its validity on the interpretation problem being satisfactorily handled.

It asserts on the basis of the text written, then, what is the truth to be believed and proclaimed now.

However, it is important to see the limitation to this approach. The structure and contents of the

Bible are not systematic. There is no one section which sets out the doctrine of sin and another that of salvation.

The formulation of Christian doctrine requires that we transform the material which is set within the framework of the dynamic processes of biblical history into a form which is true to the

Bible and applicable to the present time. The theologian wants to avoid the pitfalls of proof texting in which it is assumed that all biblical texts have equal value in establishing doctrine irrespective of the content in which they occur.

Thus, the more static kind of propositions in Christian doctrine depend for their validity on the correct handling of the dynamic revelation which the

Bible records in the very different form of an historical progression of God's dealing with man.

Biblical theology, as defined here, is dynamic, not static. That is, it follows the movement and process of God's revelation in the

Bible. It is closely related to systematic theology. The two are dependent upon one another.

But there is a difference in emphasis. Biblical theology is not concerned to state the final doctrines which go to make up the content of Christian belief, but rather to describe the process by which revelation unfolds and moves toward the goal which is

God's final revelation of his purposes in Jesus Christ. Biblical theology seeks to understand the relationships between the various eras in God's revealing activity recorded in the

Bible. The systematic theologian is mainly interested in the finished article, the statement of Christian doctrine.

The biblical theologian, on the other hand, is concerned rather with the progressive unfolding of truth.

It is on the basis of biblical theology that the systematic theologian draws upon the pre -Pentecost text of the

Bible as part of the material from which Christian doctrine may be formulated. Using the method of biblical theology, we may examine how the events in the time of Moses, for example, relate theologically to the events predicted by the later prophets and how these, in turn, relate to the

New Testament gospel. If we can thus discern a development in the biblical revelation, we are in a better position to say what relevance the

Law of Moses, the narrative of the manna in the wilderness, or any other event of the Old Testament may have to us who live on the opposite side of the

Christ event. We have seen that the Old Testament is not a mere textbook of the history of Israel as we understand it today, but a theological history.

How can we characterize this history so that we are able to see the real unity within it? I suggest we look at the

Old Testament as a history of redemption. In other words, the key to the Old Testament is not the part

Israel plays, as important as that is, but the part God plays in redeeming a people from slavery and making them his own.

The first approach would be to reduce the Old Testament to a mere example of ancient national history. The second interprets

Israel's history as a part of God's redeeming activity to man. Nor is redemption the only theological idea which provides structure to the

Old Testament, for redemption is a process which leads to a goal. Has not the

Old Testament something to say about that goal? Indeed, it has. The redeemed people of God are the people of God's kingdom.

I would even suggest that this goal, the kingdom of God, is a more central issue in the

Old Testament than is the redemptive process of bringing people into that kingdom. Of course, we cannot really separate the two so strictly.

The process needs a goal. The goal has to have a process or method of attainment.

First, the history of redemption is progressive. That is easy to see, simply by comparing the light which the patriarchs

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had on God's purposes with the understanding possessed by a post -exotic

Jew who could draw on Moses and all the prophets. When we look at the

New Testament, we find the full light of the gospel and all its implications are expounded.

Central to this gospel is the kingdom. See for example, Mark chapter 1, verses 14 and 15.

Does this mean that truth was rather dimly understood at the start and became brighter until the coming of Jesus?

Not really. The idea of gradual dawning of the light is useful to a point, but it does not explain what appear to be important peaks or climaxes within the process.

What we find is a series of stages, each self -contained, each coming to a climax leading in turn to a new stage.

The emphases given to certain events and people, historically and theologically, direct the reader's attention to such climaxes.

Secondly, the history of redemption is incomplete without the

New Testament. The fact that the kingdom forecast by the prophets is never fulfilled in the

Old Testament is of concern only if we ignore the New Testament. The great saving events of the

Old Testament, the saving of Noah, the call of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt, the establishment of the

United Monarchy, the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, and the prophetic forecast of the new and perfect kingdom, they are all fulfilled in Christ and the kingdom of Christ.

It is the New Testament that gives focus to the saving events of the Old. Christianity does not differ from Judaism by asserting that the

Old Testament is incomplete, for Judaism also recognizes the future hope of prophecy which remain unfulfilled in Old Testament times.

Some, both Christians and Jews, have tended to lose sight of a future messianic fulfillment and have thus reduced the

Old Testament to a code of morals encased within an interesting but rather irrelevant era of ancient history.

The essential difference between the two faiths lies in how the completion of the hope of Israel is brought about.

According to the New Testament, it is the Christ event which brings this hope to its appointed goal.

Judaism, on the other hand, rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the awaited messianic fulfiller and looks for other ways.

Thirdly, the history of redemption is to be interpreted. Since our concern is with Biblical theology, first and foremost, we intend to follow the method which

Biblical theology requires. A. We begin with the New Testament because it is there that we encounter the

Christ of the Gospel, through whom, by faith, we are made God's children. B.

The New Testament drives us back to the Old Testament because it everywhere presupposes the Old Testament as the basis of the

Gospel. C. The New Testament establishes for us that the

Old Testament involves promise and hope of a goal which is fulfilled in Christ. It thus directs us to take account of the dynamic, the living process and movement of the

Old Testament which leads us on to the Christ of the Gospels. Because the

New Testament declares the Old Testament to be incomplete without Christ, we must understand the

Old Testament in the light of its goal, which is Christ. Jesus is indispensable to a true understanding of the

Old Testament as well as the New. All this is of interest because it opens the way to making the

Biblical text applicable to our lives. Biblical theology shows us the kind of bridge needed to overcome the gap between the text and the modern

Christian. It may be helpful at this point to outline the three stages involved in bringing the text to ourselves.

A. Exegesis. This is the term used to refer to the business of finding out what the text originally meant.

Before we can ever show the relevance of any part of the Bible, we must know what its author intended to convey to his readers.

B. Hermeneutics. The hermeneutic or interpretive process is concerned with showing how the ancient

Biblical text has general relevance here and now. This book is mainly concerned with this stage and seeks to show how interpretation depends on the structure of the revelation of the

Bible. C. Application. The general application of the text is turned into specific application to the life of the reader or hearer.

Homiletics, preaching, is one such method of application as the preacher brings the meaning of the text from its original meaning, exegesis, through its general

Christian interpretation, hermeneutics, to its specific way of addressing the congregation.