Reaction and Thoughts on Lecture Two of Biblical Theology:

Why would it be beneficial to identify a unifying theme working throughout the Bible? The benefits of this practicality is that we will be more readily able to understand and recognize what God was saying and what God was doing. God’s word and deed can never be separated, what God says, God does.

Therefore, Biblical Theology begins with understanding the Trinity. The Trinity, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, can be translated into three themes, The Kingdom, The Covenant, and The Mediator.

The Kingdom referring to God, as Psalm 93:1 and 96 put it, God reigns. With the word “Kingdom ” a few different things can be implied. For example, a King is required in order to have a Kingdom. The Bible talks about the Reign of God. Jesus himself emphasizes that the very heart of the Kingdom idea is the Reign of God. God is active. He is actually in complete sovereign control of the everyday life of everything within His Creation. The next “Kingdom” might refer to is Jerusalem. Is it possible to think of a Kingdom without thinking of a domain? The Bible talks about the reign over His domain. This would imply everything in his domain (all of creation), not just Jerusalem falls under his reign. What happens when someone does not acknowledge God’s reign? Does that mean they are not part of the Kingdom? If you look at any of the king’s or leader’s of old, any of the English Kings/Queens, Nebuchadnezzar, Napoleon, etc., if you lived within their domain would you not be subject to their reign, whether you wanted to acknowledge it or not?

It is helpful for me to think of it this way as well, that because God reigns, so and so reigns. This means that who ever is in power as been appointed to power by God. I have this tendency to want to say that God has allowed things to happen rather than appointed because if I say appointed, I am implying that God knowingly allowed this or that to happen, and if I don’t agree with it then I must confront the God who is all knowing and working all things for His Glory. This is hard because it forces us come to terms with the fact that we do not understand everything God does and therefore must trust, have faith, in Him and put down our foolish pride that says we know what’s best in every situation. It also makes us realize that there is so much more going on in this world, and there is so much more at stake than most of the little things we get weighed down by on a daily basis.

Now back to the Kingdom, I must apologize as I will often lose myself in tangents of thought. The kingdom is pretty easy to see in the Old Testament, as you can see God actually leading his people, reigning over them and through word and action. In the New Testament it is just a prevalent, just in a different way. John the Baptist came preaching the Kingdom, essentially creating the foundation of New Testament Theology on the fact that the Kingdom had come, that Jesus, the Mediator, had come. The New Testament is filled with examples of Jesus exercising his authority and reign over all things. When he said something, it happened, whether that was calming the seas, casting out demons as well as Satan himself, healing the sick, or raising the dead. This is also exactly what Paul was doing in the Acts 28. By living with confidence in the word and promises of God, telling them of Christ and his works, he was bringing the authority and reign of God to everyone he came into contact with (barbarians and Jews alike). 

            You can begin to see that there was something special about Paul if you read Acts 28. There is an incredible amount of unrelenting passion and tireless work that he displays and points to his intimate relationship with God. You can visibly see the fruits of what happens when God creates an abiding relationship with His people.

            This brings us to the second theme, the Covenant. Covenant cannot be separated from the idea of kingdom. The word is mentioned 290 times in the Bible but never once defined by the Bible. This makes it difficult to fully understand because it is used for many different reasons in many different conditions. A few meanings as defined by different scenerios:

                        -To rise, establish (was the referred to as covenant).

                        -To continue – For example: I will continue with you.

                        -To give – Idea of a gift. Example: I gift you my covenant.

                        -Is, it exists – Once I give it, so it is.

                        - Remember

                        - God Keeps – Used the most when people were told to be obedient.

                        - Set – Used with David in reference to foundations (building foundations)

            Bond/Relationship – God established a relationship, an unbreakable bond. Much like a marriage bond   

                              is intended to be. In our world bonds can be broken, but to God a covenant is unbreakable.

            Examples: Unilateral – All God’s covenants

      Bilateral – Marriage

Very important to understand difference with Conditional and Contingent

            Conditional – If you do this, then that (making deal with God)

            Contingent – When you do this, this happens (trust/belief in God)

So what is Covenant? It is an abiding (steadfast, enduring, continuing without change) relationship that God sets up. At the very heart of this all however is the third and most important theme, the Mediator. Adam and Eve were the first mediators, appointed by God. After that it became the seed of the woman, then Kings, Queens, and Prophets, and ultimately it all leading up to the second Adam, Christ.

Christ is the pinwheel on which all else turns (in understanding the Bible, Biblical Theology, and the world around us). Not only is He spoken of as the Kingdom, but He as the ultimate Mediator, He has come as the physical manifestation and expression of God’s Covenant with His people (who are also referred to as His Kingdom).

Despondency

This is something I've been struggling with for awhile now and am starting to understand. I've posted some thoughts on it on a blog I am going to try and use as a daily thought organizer. I must apologize for being horribly undisciplined in keeping up with this. I have the notes on the second lecture and plan on putting them into a more expositional format that might be easier to understand. Check back tomorrow for that as I will attempt to restart this study on Biblical Theology.

A link to my other blog
http://thedailyjam.blogspot.com/

What is your Theology?

Hello there, sorry it took so long to get this first one up and running, I think it is always the hardest one, the first one. Here it is though, I'm still not sure how we are going to do this so I guess I am just going to post my notes with some questions for discussion, that way if you don't have time to listen to it you can get an idea of what the message was.

I'll put the notes at the end because after looking back at them they probably won't make much sense to anyone but me (so I guess I'd advise listening to it).

I don't really have any questions for this week but this could be a good time for us to maybe talk about our own Biblical Theology as it stands right now? Where it may come from, its influences, hopefully making us think about why we think what we have been thinking right now.


Notes

Luke 24:43-44 – good connecter of new and old of both testaments because Christ is the central figure in both.

What is your theology?

Phillip Watsun
Biblical Theology – it is fact or speech about God – a scientific discipline, purely descriptive role, but fulfills a normative role on behalf of dogmatic theology
Meaning that it simply describes what we think and say about God

Frank Anderson-Australian evangelical scholar – BT – Encyclapedia of Christianity, volume 2 page 63 – much better than P. Watsun on view of BT
William Durness-missionary teacher in Far East – describes BT as study of themes – Evangelical scholar – book is a systematic study – Revelation – God – Man – Christ - Salvation

George Lad – pg 25 BT has to dwell with history – must look at historical setting of each aspect of God’s revelation in each part of the bible – BT is primarily a descriptive discipline – not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the bible or applying it to today – (worth reading but would depart from his view here)

Dr. Gerhardus Vass approach to BT- book (Biblical Theology)– 3 sets of lectures, mosaic revelation, prophetic, Jesus (gospels) – sets up a good case for how we should understand BT and how we should approach it as we go through it. – BT deals with the self revelation of God that is deposited in the bible. This process has to be understood as having four main features
1. The historic progressive character of the revelation process. Meaning that revelation as a process was continually progressing, moving through history. God revealed himself from creation up to now
2. Embodied in History – God has always come to man. God did not bring people out of history, but entered into our history. Hard to make a relevant point now if don’t understand how it was used in original context (how it was relevant then)
3. The organic nature of the revelation – progressively unveiled as a seed that contains an entire oak tree. What God revealed to Adam and Eve before and after the Fall, were like basic acorns of truth. By the time Moses had come and done his work, the entire revelation of god had been revealed … the truth was there. Was organic, embedded in history, constantly unfolding.
4. Adaptability – God does not speak in ways that are not adaptable to the time when they were spoken. He does not speak nonsense and as you follow the study through the scriptures, you will always find that God had a really meaningful and personal application to the people to whom he spoke. So if we know what the true intent of the original meaning was we can actually begin to understand its significance and therefore apply it to our time.

Thematic approach, so you can follow a theme from the very beginning to the end. What does the bible have to say about… It will give you a good understanding of the various doctrines, but more like systematic theology than following the process of revelation where God interacting with man, his promises concerning the messiah, always working out his covenantal relationships with his people, to see all of these themes together (a bit more complicated) but allows you to see how all of these different kernels develop. A biologist wouldn’t try learning about an oak tree by picking one strand and following that one all the way to the end and then the next, he would study it as it grows as a whole…

Liberal Historical Critical theory - were thinking that the bible works better if rearranged and that the bible was rewritten and rewritten. So the bible was not presented in the way it was and needed to be reorganized. They do not follow the historic approach, hard to follow and describe process of belief, each critic had own way of doing this based on own presuppositions or predilections. Ichroads – can learn from them though, Edward Jacobs, once you get out of process and can read what they have to say about specific verses can be very helpful.

New testament quotation approach – the only way to understand OT is to see what NT has to say about it. From context of NT, try to figure out how OT was written and what it was meant to mean.
Old testament issues basic issues in the current debate – Jehrard Hassle (regretful though that he doesn’t believe in one central theme of the bible)

Confessional Approach – what will the bible help me to confess. But doesn’t work because there is so much more in the bible than just confessions (rebellions to name one)

Vos – successive belief makings – pg 16 – did God make a series of covenants, or did god come and renew and confirm and expand his covenant relationship with his people. This seems to be a very convincing argument.

Problem areas, what is history, what kind of history do we have in the Bible, is it only dealing with the Israel as a nation? Is it a record of believing people? Is a record of religious ideas/ beliefs, or religion? Is it a record of revelation? Also a record of appropriation? Also a record of how people respond to God, with or without appropriation?
Bible gives us a history of God revealing himself to his people, how, why, when and where he did this.

The unity of the OT and NT is essential (can not be denied) seeing as Jesus is at the core of the OT.
The coming of the Kingdom (book)

Is there a central theme to the bible? Three basic themes, the kingdom, the covenant, the mediator (next lecture)

Practicality of BT – can help us understand that you can never separate what God said from what he did. He always did what he said he would, and very seldom did something with out speaking about it first.

Biblical Theology

This is the first class I would like to go through and discuss if everyone is ok with it. I figured it would be good for us all to learn about the Presbyterian theology even if we don't all agree in order to best understand and flush out the things that we really do believe and if the things we are practicing are the same things we are saying we believe.

The way I was thinking of trying to go through two classes a week, so every Monday I will post my thoughts on the two classes that are scheduled for that week, and then as people have time to listen throughout the week they can comment or ask questions for others to see and respond to. This is just an idea/suggestion so let me know you think there might be a better way of doing it.

Course Description

An overview of the covenantal structure of the whole of biblical revelation, centering on the concepts of kingdom, covenant, and mediator, and how these themes unify the Scriptures.