Welcome.
So I'll try and be punctual, so let me open this up in a word of prayer.
Thank you for coming to this intro to biblical theology.
So let's pray.
Our Father in heaven, great are your works, O Lord, studied by all who delight in you.
We pray, Lord, as we study your works, your word, that we would increasingly delight in you.
We know that we can do nothing apart from you, nothing of spiritual value.
So we pray the Spirit would open up our eyes.
Lord, open our minds to understand your word as Jesus did for his disciples.
We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.
Well, good morning.
Everyone loves a story.
A great story has suspense, high-stakes drama, danger, and unexpected, shocking plot twists.
Storytellers from J.K. Rowling to Tolkien, from William Shakespeare to George Lucas, have captured our imaginations.
And these great stories contain memorable characters, don't they?
Characters like Gandalf, Atticus Finch, Forrest Gump, to Rocky Balboa.
Great stories carry us into different worlds.
And stories can help us to see our own world with new eyes.
Charles Dickens once noted that the greatest short story ever written was the short story, The Prodigal Son.
Our Lord Jesus was a master storyteller, wasn't he?
We're familiar with that story of The Prodigal Son.
The lost, wayward, younger brother who runs off, recklessly spending everything he has until he finds himself fighting with the pigs to eat the slop in the pig pen.
And the elder brother, outwardly moral, but inwardly distant from the father.
And who can forget the father in that story?
Who runs.
He runs when his younger son comes home.
He threw his arms around him and joyfully embraced him, even when his son was still filthy from eating with the pigs.
And we remember the coldness of the elder brother in that story when he sees his father show grace to the younger brother.
And that's a window of a spiritual reality where we learn that God is extravagantly generous.
He's gracious.
And he joyfully embraces the repentant sinner that comes home.
I wonder if you've ever seen yourself in that story of The Prodigal Son.
A good story, a well-told story, can help us to see our own world with new eyes.
A story can capture our imaginations.
And, you know, it isn't surprising that the Lord Jesus was a master storyteller.
Because God, from the beginning, has been weaving an incredible, glorious story in history recorded for us in the books of the Bible.
The Bible tells us the best non-fiction story ever written.
It's telling us one majestic story.
So this brings us to the topic of this Sunday School series in Biblical Theology.
So let's begin with the question,
What exactly is biblical theology?
Is it all theology that's biblical?
Not quite.
Although I hope that will be true of our theology.
Biblical theology is actually a technical term.
It's the discipline of understanding how the wonderfully diverse parts of the Bible, 66 books in total, fit together into one grand story centered on Christ.
So I'll say that again.
It's the discipline of understanding how the wonderfully diverse parts of the Bible, 66 books in total, fit together into one grand story centered on Christ.
So perhaps the best way to explain biblical theology is to contrast it with systematic theology.
So when we hear the word theology, we're typically thinking about systematic theology.
You know, the Bible isn't neatly organized into question and answer format, right?
One of the great challenges for any student of the scripture is that when we quickly realize that the scriptures don't explain their coherent set of beliefs one topic at a time.
Instead, the Bible is a collection of 66 books written in many different genres over the span of 1500 years by some 40 authors addressing multiple topics in various ways in different circumstances.
So getting your arms around even one topic is incredibly difficult.
Enter systematic theology.
Systematic theology is a topical approach to understanding the Bible.
So a systematician typically will take one topic.
He'll gather all the verses, find every reference in the Bible on that one topic, synthesize those verses, and he'll typically come up with a succinct answer to that topical question.
So for some examples of systematic theology.
The first question in the Westminster Catechism.
What is the chief end of man?
Answer.
Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Or the first question in the Heidelberg Catechism.
What is your only comfort in life and death?
I'm going to read the whole thing because it's just so wonderful.
Answer.
That I am not my own, but belong body and soul in life and in death to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood and has set me free from all the power of the devil.
He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head.
Indeed, all things must work together for my salvation.
Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for him.
Or what does the Bible say about angels?
What does the Bible say about capital punishment?
So that's systematic theology.
That's not what this class is about.
Although systematic theology is an important discipline for any Christian to study and understand.
So I tend to think that this discipline provides necessary guardrails for us.
It's helpful to know what all the scriptures say about a given topic when we're in the weeds of trying to understand a specific verse.
So if you're walking through the streets of New York City, it's helpful to have a map or a Google Earth view on your phone.
So you don't get lost in the city.
You take a wrong turn and end somewhere that you don't want to end up.
And likewise, systematic theology guards our doctrine when reading the Bible.
So I want to say systematic theology complements biblical theology and vice versa.
So in contrast, we have here the discipline of biblical theology.
It's a way of reading the Bible.
A hermeneutic.
It's tracing that grand story with all its twists and its turns centered on Christ.
So the Bible presents a drama of God's love for us.
And it's learning to trace that narrative that has a glorious beginning in creation.
A crisis.
Namely, the presence of sin.
And the holiness of God.
And God's original intention for the world.
And a resolution of that crisis through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The hero of the story.
And a restoration back to glory better than the way it was before.
With some unexpected plot twists along the way.
So biblical theology ultimately will help us get us out of our false stories.
And into the real story of the world.
We learn to live our lives within the story of the scripture.
By learning biblical theology.
So in addition to tracing the story.
Biblical theology is concerned with getting into the biblical author's mind.
Seeing the events through the author's eyes.
As he describes the world and the events that are unfolding.
Let's talk about some examples of biblical theology.
I should mention there are many different subsets within biblical theology.
But in every case.
You are careful to pay attention to the nuances within the Bible.
And putting in the larger context of the biblical storyline.
So for example.
A biblical theologian may ask the question.
What are the particular set of theological emphases within the book of Exodus?
Or how does Isaiah contribute to our understanding of God as a savior in the Bible?
Or what does the book of Hebrews contribute to the canon?
Or look at Paul's writings.
And how does he differ from the apostle John.
And how he describes the kingdom of God.
So you are careful to look at words and arguments.
In their literary historical context.
Yet another discipline.
Is asking how a certain theme works itself out through the scriptures.
So let's do a small exercise in biblical theology.
For example.
What does the Bible say about the temple?
In the Bible.
The temple is described as a place.
Where God would dwell with his people.
God's presence.
The Shekinah glory.
That cloud of glory.
Initially came to reside in a tabernacle.
Remember that mobile tent in Exodus.
And later in the temple at Jerusalem.
But the temple wasn't a physical structure only.
God carefully instructed Israel on how to build the temple.
And through that design.
We learn that the temple retold a story.
Of how God originally dwelt with his people.
In the Garden of Eden.
So the temple wasn't just a building.
But it was a symbol.
And that symbol pointed to God's desire to once again dwell with his people.
As the Bible progresses.
As the story unfolds.
God's presence departs from the temple.
Right?
And the temple was destroyed.
Because of the people's rebellion.
And the holy God cannot dwell with a sinful people.
And even when the people rebuilt the temple in Ezra and Nehemiah.
God did not dwell there.
And the Bible is asking the question.
Would God once again dwell with his people?
We learn the temple is a shadow of a reality that will come later in the Bible.
In the opening book of John.
We read this about Jesus.
And the word became flesh.
And dwelt among us.
And we have seen his glory.
Glory as of the only son from the father.
Full of grace and truth.
So Jesus dwelt among us.
Literally means Jesus tabernacled among us.
So Jesus is described as the tabernacle.
Where God became human.
Jesus is the ultimate reality to which the temple always pointed to.
And Jesus claimed throughout the gospels.
That he was the new temple.
Right?
Jesus said tear down this temple.
And in three days I will build it again.
Referring to himself.
And after the resurrection.
The apostles say Christians are many temples.
Since we are indwelled by the spirit.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 would say.
Do you not know that you are God's temple?
And that God's spirit dwells in you?
In the last verses of the Bible.
John writes about his vision of the new heavens and the new earth.
After Jesus returns in Revelation 21 and 22.
And John sees a majestic depiction of Jerusalem.
But something is missing there.
There's no temple.
And why would there be?
Jesus is right there with his people.
Right?
What was lost in the beginning was now restored.
God is dwelling with his people once again.
Just like in the Garden of Eden.
So this is a brief biblical theology of the temple.
It traces the story of the temple through the scriptures.
And you can see how it might be helpful to understand how a theme plays itself out.
A profitable exercise that D.A. Carson gives his incoming students.
In his intro to biblical theology class.
At a Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Is going through the last two chapters of the Bible.
Revelation 21 and 22.
And listing all the themes and images.
That John is taking from the first two chapters of the Bible.
Genesis 1 and 2.
And there are dozens and dozens of themes.
That find their climax.
In those last two chapters of the Bible.
So in this class.
We'll spend five weeks.
Five weeks.
And we'll walk through some of the big stories in the Bible together.
So today we'll discuss how to do biblical theology.
So it's different from what we'll do in the remaining four weeks.
So today may feel a little more abstract.
Or theoretical.
As we walk through the principles of biblical theology.
But I want us to get on the same page.
As we start tracing some of the big storylines through the scripture.
Next week, Lord willing.
We'll discuss the storyline of God's kingdom through the covenants.
Then creation and new creation.
And then Nick Pizzensi will walk us through the storyline of God's people or the church.
And then the theme of sacrifice.
Okay.
So let's start with the question.
Why should we read the Bible this way as a story centered on Christ?
Why should we do it?
So if you turn to Luke 24.
Luke 24.
Verse 26.
You may recall one of the first things Jesus did after the resurrection.
Was give his disciples a course on biblical theology.
On the road to Emmaus.
Now a disclaimer.
I guarantee you.
That this class will not be as good as Jesus' class was on the road to Emmaus.
So we'll have to ask them.
The disciples what that was like in heaven.
But if you look at verse 26.
In chapter 24.
Jesus said this.
Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets.
He interpreted to them in all the scriptures.
The things concerning himself.
Jesus here is teaching his disciples on how to interpret the scriptures properly.
How to trace the story that is centered on Christ.
And look down at verse 44 in that same chapter.
Jesus said to them.
These are my words.
That I spoke to you.
While I was still with you.
That everything written about me in the law of Moses.
And the prophets and the Psalms.
Must be fulfilled.
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
And said to them.
Thus it is written.
That the Christ should suffer.
And on the third day rise from the dead.
And that repentance.
For the forgiveness of sins.
Should be proclaimed in his name to all nations.
Beginning from Jerusalem.
So what books of the Bible is he referring to in verse 44 that must be fulfilled?
That's the entire Old Testament.
The law of Moses, prophets, and Psalms.
That's the entire Old Testament must be fulfilled.
And verse 45 is striking, isn't it?
It says Jesus opened their minds.
To understand what the Old Testament actually teaches.
So friends, without faith, you can read the Old Testament and not see Jesus anywhere.
The disciples are learning to read the Bible supernaturally.
Jesus is opening their minds.
To understand the scriptures.
So the entirety of the Old Testament can be summed up in verse 46.
The Christ should suffer.
And on the third day rise from the dead.
And the repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations beginning from Jerusalem.
So here's one illustration of how to think about this.
What's that stunning piece of news we learn at the end of the second Star Wars movie?
Stunning.
My apologies if you haven't seen the movie.
And I'm going to spoil it for you.
But that stunning piece of news is that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father.
It's shocking.
And there's some great YouTube videos of parents videoing their children learning that for the first time.
They're just shocked.
So the news that Darth Vader is Luke's father shapes how you watch the rest of the movies, doesn't it?
How did Anakin become Darth Vader?
What's going to happen between him and Luke and their conflict?
That shapes how you watch the movies.
And likewise, the coming of Jesus, the cross and resurrection shapes how you read the Bible.
Elsewhere, think about how Jesus chides the Jews in John 5 for not recognizing that the scriptures are all about him.
In John 5, Jesus told the Pharisees,
You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life.
It is they that bear witness about me.
Our authority in saying that the Old Testament bears witness about Jesus comes from the fact that Jesus himself understood this to be true.
Christ's attitude toward the Old Testament should shape our attitude as his disciples.
And as you read the New Testament, you quickly realize the apostles saw this very same thing.
The Old Testament bore witness about Jesus in light of the cross and resurrection.
Graham Goldsworthy, a biblical scholar from Australia, estimated that the New Testament has at least 1,600 direct quotations from the Old Testament and several thousand more allusions.
Or put another way, there are only 12 chapters in the entire New Testament that don't directly reference the Old Testament.
So the more we study the New Testament, the more we realize the apostles share the conviction that Jesus had.
When the apostles are expounding a topic, all of them are building off the foundation of the Old Testament, what it started.
So if you look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul will use the word word and gospel interchangeably.
He says,
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.
So Paul had the same conviction that Jesus had.
The gospel, the good news of what Christ has done, is what the scriptures testify about.
And if you're not familiar with the story of this good news, I'm glad to share with you, friends.
It's a joyous proclamation that there is only one God.
And this God is holy, and he made us in his image.
And as image bearers, he created us to love him and to love each other.
But we've sinned against this good God, haven't we?
Our own conscience bears witness that this is true.
Because of this sin, we all rightly deserve God's wrath and condemnation.
And God's wrath isn't just personal, terrible, certain, horrifying.
It's also completely right.
God is not some crooked judge that can be bribed or who can just sweep our sin under the rug.
No, Psalm 7 verse 11 tells us that God is a righteous judge who feels indignation every day.
Because God is consistently opposed to evil with every fiber in his being.
And there's nowhere for us to hide from this God who knows and sees all.
But the joyous news is this.
That while we were dead in our sin, in his great love, the Father sent his son Jesus,
fully God and fully man, to rescue his people.
Jesus lived a perfect life, never sinning.
And willingly went to a cross to take on the wrath of God as a substitute in our place.
And God poured out his wrath on Jesus that we deserved.
And on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead,
showing that his sacrifice was acceptable to the Father.
And that every last drop of God's wrath had been exhausted.
And God now commands everyone everywhere to turn from their sins and trust in Christ alone.
And we are born again to a new life.
We become new creations.
Isn't that glorious?
We are brought into the church as a new people of God, adopted as sons and daughters.
And one day, his redeemed people will joyously dwell with Christ forever.
And that's the glorious good news of the gospel.
And this is the story that every book from Genesis to Revelation testifies to.
As Jesus said, the Christ should suffer in a third day rise from the dead.
And repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations.
Now, some people would have a major objection to reading the Bible this way.
Some will focus on the text as individual documents and divorce them from the rest of the storyline of Scripture.
So, if you've ever read some of the historical critical method scholars, they will do just this.
If you've taken a Bible class in a university, maybe in your undergrad years, you may have done this.
Some of these critical scholars don't care what's in the canon.
They pull a text apart and claim it was written by multiple sources, written at different times for different purposes,
with no coherent story unifying them all.
Now, I'm not saying there's no place for the historical critical method.
I'm not saying that at all.
I mean, certain books in the Bible were certainly written by multiple people at different times, such as Proverbs and Psalms.
Nonetheless, there are some in this field who would deny the Bible as telling one single coherent story.
So, in doing biblical theology, reading the Bible the way the apostles read the Bible,
we must make certain assumptions about the Bible.
So, I'm going to put our cards on the table here.
And there are at least four assumptions you have to have about the Bible to do biblical theology.
And the first assumption is this.
There is one author.
There are 66 books of the Bible, but ultimately, there is only one author.
There is one primary author, that is God himself, who speaks through his spirit,
working and speaking to people from beginning to end.
But, biblical theology recognizes there are unique circumstances and unique personalities
of these authors coming together to form part of this organic unity.
So, it is both true that there are multiple authors and one author at the same time.
The Bible really is the manifold wisdom of God.
Second, it is progressive revelation.
It is progressive revelation.
What does this mean?
The Bible is special revelation about himself and his plans to his people.
But God has not done this all at once.
Right?
He has done this progressively or in different stages.
So, imagine a light dimmer in a room.
It begins dimly, but then the light gets brighter as you keep turning the knob.
And this is similar to how the Bible works.
We know more about God now than the days of the Old Testament.
And the opening lines of Hebrews makes this very point.
It says,
So, Jesus tells us more about the nature of God than the entire Old Testament combined.
Jesus is the exact image of God's nature.
Jesus said,
If you've seen me, you've seen the Father.
Now, Jesus isn't the Father himself.
But he has the exact imprint of his nature.
Right?
We can better see God now than the saints in the Old Testament did.
That's progressive revelation.
Or another example of progressive revelation is look at Job's statement in Job chapter 9, verse 33, a well-known verse.
Job said this,
For God is not a man as I am that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.
There is no mediator between us who might lay his hands on us both.
If you think about it, it seems like Job is denying there's a mediator between us and God, who can bring us before God to plead our cause.
We want to tell him, actually, Job, there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, as 1 Timothy 2.15 says.
Jesus is our one mediator, mediating for us at the cross by taking on God's wrath for us, but also laying a sympathetic hand on us in our suffering, because Jesus himself suffered.
That's what Job really wanted, but he didn't know that.
There are hints about this in the Old Testament, but it doesn't become clear until Jesus comes.
So we need to keep progressive revelation in mind as we read the Bible.
Third assumption, although there is a unity of a single story, so recognizing the diversity of biblical text, we realize the Bible, the books of the Bible were written for different reasons, with different authors, using different terminology.
So some examples of some of that in the Bible.
The Gospel of John, that we just preached through here at Trinity, was written to help us to know and believe in Jesus as the Christ.
John tells us that.
While the book of Hebrews is emphasizing not falling away by looking over our shoulders and going back into our former manner of life.
It seems like the audience of Hebrews were dealing with a lot of guilt.
If you recall, the author keeps exhorting them to draw near in confidence, with full assurance since Christ cleanses us from a guilty conscience.
In contrast, the book of Exodus proclaims a God that saves his people.
Exodus describes a God who is utterly holy, powerful to save, perfectly faithful, unrelenting in justice, and abounding in compassion.
God tells the people in Exodus, you cannot see my face and live.
And even in that statement, Exodus wants to bring us face to face with this God in the text.
An unrivaled, majestic God who saves his people and shatters his enemies.
And the book of Leviticus, let's talk about the book of Leviticus, is teaching us that we are sinful and God is holy.
And how are we to relate to God in light of that reality?
The book of Leviticus is located at the center of the Pentateuch.
The very center of the first five books of the Bible.
And if you look at Leviticus in its literary context, it's written in a very specific pattern called a chiasm.
Like opening a Russian egg, a chiasm means to point the reader to the very center where both sides meet.
And at the very center of Leviticus, which is the center of the entire Pentateuch,
God institutes the Day of Atonement.
Yom Kippur for Israel.
So this is the day where the appointed high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies once a year to sprinkle blood over the mercy seat.
And as Hebrews tells us, the fact that this had to be repeated every single year signals to us that it wasn't a final solution to sin.
A greater sacrifice would need to come.
So at the center of the Pentateuch, God is teaching his people that a greater sacrifice would need to be made to solve the problem of sin.
Two more.
Colossians tells us that Christ is not just prominent, he is preeminent in the church, in our walk as Christians, in our growth.
And Jude was written to combat false teaching in the church.
So we could list more examples, but you get the point, right?
There's a diversity and a unity at the same time within the books of the Bible.
Another thing about this idea of diversity, the diversity of biblical texts also means the authors use different terminology.
So, in other words, they may use the same words, but in different ways.
In biblical theology, we'll let each part of Scripture speak with their own voice.
And we'll work to see how those voices fit into the overall choir of the message of Scripture.
For example, Paul will use the term called differently than Jesus did.
When Paul uses the term called, that means you are saved.
What theologians will call the effectual call.
So Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 says this,
So if you are called, the message of Christ crucified, the gospel, is the power of God.
If you are not called, then the gospel is foolishness and a stumbling block.
Or think about Romans 8.28. Paul says this,
Compare that to Jesus' use of the term called.
For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 22.
So theologians will call that the general call.
So Paul is using a word with a very technical meaning,
differently than the general call in the book of Matthew.
So biblical theology lets different parts of Scripture speak with their own voice.
And lastly, there are different genres of Scripture.
And like I said, God did not give us a systematic theology.
Instead, the Scriptures contain historical narratives,
apocalyptic literature, prophecy, poetry, wisdom literature, epistles, parables.
So you don't read a poem or a comic strip the same way you read a biography of George Washington.
Likewise, you don't read the Song of Solomon the same way you read Paul's letter to the Romans.
Right?
We understand that.
And each genre really deserves its own Sunday school class.
But our takeaway here is that the Bible is incredibly diverse and must be read on its own terms.
But each part testifies to one primary glorious end, Christ and Him crucified.
So these are some things we must make when doing biblical theology.
There is one author, progressive revelation,
a unity and diversity of biblical texts,
and centered on Christ.
So let's talk about how to do biblical theology.
How to do biblical theology.
What tools do we need to do this?
Well, the first tool,
the first tool is exegesis or exposition.
You may have heard of that word, exegesis or exposition.
Biblical theology prizes literary and historical context.
That means the reader must be careful interpreting each text by analyzing what the human and what the divine author intended to communicate.
So in some ways, the emphasis in exposition is what the human author intended to communicate to its audience.
So this is called the grammatical historical method.
And so reading a text without the grammatical historical method is like listening to a baseball game without understanding the rules of baseball.
You know, it makes little sense to how the game is unfolding if you don't understand the rules of baseball.
And likewise, we need the grammatical historical method to understand how the Bible is speaking to its audience.
One classic example of how not to read the Bible is that you should not do this.
Imagine a person who never read the Bible before flipped to Matthew 27, verse 5.
Matthew said of Judas, the man who had betrayed Jesus for money,
that he, that is Judas, threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself.
Then imagine this person turned to Luke 10 where Jesus said, go and do likewise.
So, Judas.
We would never read the Bible like that, right?
Are we to conclude that Jesus wants us to throw down our money and hang ourselves?
Of course not. That's ridiculous.
We understand when interpreting the Bible, context is key.
As D.A. Carson once said, a text without a context is a pretext to a proof text.
So we don't want to be pulling out verses out of context to try and prove something in the Bible.
We want to read each verse in its proper context.
So to do this, we ask ourselves questions.
Like, how are these sentences connected?
What does this paragraph mean?
What's the general flow of the argument to this point?
Is the author using a specific word with a technical meaning that I should be aware of?
And behind the text are a number of additional questions about the historical context.
Is there a cultural context that we should be aware of?
So the beliefs of the Pharisees or Sadducees within the Second Temple Judaism.
Are there issues of history or geography that shed light on the meaning?
The dealings between the Jews and Samaritans in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
What literary genre is this?
So the first and most important step in biblical theology is exposition.
The second tool is examining a text within the storyline of the scripture.
And this examines a text in view of the entire plot of the Bible.
So our God is the Lord of history, right?
And God sent forth his Son at a specific defined point in history.
And 1 Peter 1.10 says this.
It says,
So this means the Spirit was moving the prophets to proclaim messages of future grace
through the suffering of this Messiah, this Christ who would come.
And the prophets and even the angels, as 1 Peter says,
long to see what we see.
The prophets long to see how God would fulfill these promises of future grace
through the sufferings and glories of this Messiah.
So we can view a text in light of the overall plot
that finds its climax in Christ.
So of course we can't expect to do this unless we understand
the way the Old Testament functions as a part of the Bible.
So we have to understand the sweep of Old Testament history.
So the timeline in the handout in the back there,
I found to be a helpful illustration of a Google Earth view of Old Testament history.
So if you look at that, it talks about the narratives, the major events,
and just like a little chart that kind of shows the history of Israel
from like a macro perspective.
I thought it was helpful.
So that's the storyline tool when reading the Bible.
The third tool after the plot is looking at promises or prophecies.
So Mark Dever once said the entire Old Testament can be summed up in two words,
promises made.
And the New Testament can be summed up as promises kept.
So God made that first gospel promise of a Savior
that will crush the serpent in the opening chapters of Genesis.
Or think about the promise God gave to Abraham
to provide an offspring that would bless the entire world.
So to orient ourselves in the storyline of the Scriptures,
when we see a promise that's made,
we want to ask ourselves, how does God keep that promise?
And you know, some promises we are still waiting for God to keep.
And believing in those promises requires faith from us as Christians.
And faith comes by hearing and trusting in God's promises.
So just like our spiritual ancestors in the Old Testament,
we're living by faith.
Right?
Trusting that God keeps his promises.
So that's the third tool, promises.
Fourth, fourth is, no, that's the third.
The third tool, the second tool is promises.
The third tool is types.
Types.
So this might, this is probably where biblical theology
may have seen this before.
It's quite unique.
So a third tool is types.
The biblical term for this, for types, is shadows.
So understanding typology is important because if we don't understand this,
then we won't understand the New Testament's interpretation of the Old.
So consider what the writer of Hebrews says.
Hebrews 10, verse 1.
For instance, the law has but a shadow of the good things to come
instead of the true form of these realities.
It can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year,
make perfect those who draw near.
So the author of Hebrews is saying the sacrifices in Leviticus
was only a shadow or type.
The real sacrifice is Christ.
So in biblical theology, the type is often called the shadow.
The anti-type is the fulfillment.
So in other words, this shadow, this type,
was just a symbolic pointing ahead to the reality,
the real thing, the anti-type.
So this is platonic language.
If you're familiar with the Plato's cave story,
the person sees a shadow on the cave wall,
but when he leaves the cave, he then sees the reality.
And the author of Hebrews is drawing upon this idea.
The shadows are found in the Old Covenant.
The real thing, the reality, is what we have in the New Covenant.
That's really what the entire book of Hebrews is about.
The angels, the law, the priests, the sacrifices, the temple,
the covenant, the psalms,
all point toward the reality of Christ.
So Hebrews is arguing to Jews who are tempted to go back into Judaism,
when you have the reality,
why would you go back to the shadow in the cave?
Like, don't go back into the cave when you have the reality here in Christ.
So the authors of the New Testament are presenting Jesus
as the fulfillment of the types or shadows in the Old Testament.
So how do we recognize typology or shadows when reading the Old Testament?
There are two basic principles for typology.
First is historical correspondence.
That is repetition of words, phrases, themes, and images.
So historical correspondence.
Second is escalation.
Escalation.
Where these images are intensifying as the Bible progresses.
So in thinking about these principles of historical correspondence and escalation,
if God's revelation is centered on the person of Jesus Christ,
and our God is the Lord of history,
then we would expect signposts within the Old Testament
that point us to Jesus and the cross.
They point us ahead.
And we should expect these signposts,
these repetitions,
to continue and intensify
as redemptive history drew near to the time of Jesus' coming,
the escalation.
So in the purpose of God,
he provides us preparatory shadows,
the real saving events in the Old Testament.
So having said that,
typology is dangerous ground.
It is dangerous ground.
You can begin to see things everywhere.
We don't want to be playing a game of Twister
while reading the Bible.
I don't know if you guys ever played Twister when you were younger.
So we don't want to do that when we're reading the Bible.
So for instance,
imagine someone is reading the account of David's defeat of Goliath.
David took five smooth stones to fight Goliath.
The interpreter of these five stones says,
in order to defeat your Goliath, Christian,
you need the five smooth stones of faith,
hope, love, strength,
and maybe an emergency fund in case things go wrong.
No, says the Calvinist,
the five smooth stones are the five points of Calvinism,
obviously.
Someone else says,
no, no, no, no.
The five stones are the five sides of the Pentagon,
and we need a strong national defense
to defeat America's Goliath.
It's like,
you see the problem there, right?
It seems pretty arbitrary, doesn't it?
The person who's interpreting the five smooth stones
is just inventing meaning out of thin air,
like making it say whatever he wants it to say.
So in modern lingo,
some will say this person is sliding into allegory,
which is longer discussion coming up ahead,
which is shorthand to say there's no textual warrant
for that interpretation.
So as you might know,
allegories are just stories
that have a deeper spiritual meaning behind them.
So think of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
or Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.
Those are allegories.
Should we read the Bible like that?
Is there a spiritual meaning behind the text?
And so this conversation of allegories
is a hard topic to talk about,
and there is a few reasons for this.
Typology versus allegory.
First, there's a stigma attached to allegories nowadays.
So even saying the word draws suspicion from people.
People mean different things when they say allegory.
Some may be referencing typology or parables.
Others might be referencing something else entirely.
So you can have two people kind of talking past each other
when they talk about the appropriateness
of allegories in the Bible.
Second, this is a debate about the use of allegory
that goes back thousands of years.
So men like Origen, Augustine, Athanasius
employed lots of allegory in their writing,
the type that people today would criticize.
So two examples.
First, Algorisks interpreted the scarlet cord
that Rahab was told to hold,
to hang from her window in Joshua
as the blood of Christ flowing down Calvary.
Or another is Augustine interpreting
the parable of the Good Samaritan.
In this way, allegorically,
the man going down and attacked was Adam.
The Good Samaritan is Jesus.
The priest that passes by and refuses to help is the law.
The inn is a church where two denarii are paid,
the promise of this life and the life to come.
And the innkeeper is Paul.
And so many theologians would say
that these men are not interpreting
the natural meaning of the passages.
Did the authors intend that meaning?
I would say this is probably the majority view
and conservative biblical scholars would say this.
However, however, I want to defend these men.
I think it would be unfair to say the early church
just invented meaning out of nowhere
without rhyme or reason.
So I think these men would argue
they weren't departing from the author's intent,
but were being loyal to the principle
that Christ was to be found in every passage.
So if we could ask Augustine, if we was here,
like, brother, do you actually think
Jesus meant for us to understand
that Paul is the innkeeper
in the parable of the Good Samaritan?
Did he mean that?
I think he would probably say no.
No.
But it's a good illustration
to help people understand
certain spiritual realities.
So, namely, the supremacy of Christ
and salvation as the Good Samaritan,
but also the importance of the church
as the man was brought to be cared for there.
And, in fact, when you read someone like John Calvin,
who frequently derides the use of allegories,
while frequently actually allegorizing himself
to illustrate something,
and Spurgeon does the very same thing.
So I want to say that there,
I think both sides agree
that there is abuse of allegory,
like the Five Stones example.
Where there doesn't seem to be
any spiritual value or reason
to how they're interpreting the text.
And I think allegories can be very useful
in interpreting things for people.
So, having said that,
2 Timothy reminds us that Christians
need to rightly handle the word of truth.
So we need to proceed with caution.
Be very careful if you're tempted
to allegorize something in the Bible.
Maybe consult some commentaries.
See if there's...
That's been...
That's been said before.
So how do we accurately point out that shadow,
that type of the Old Testament,
without twisting the meaning?
The safest ground to establishing a type
is rooted in the biblical text itself.
So in the New Testament,
Jesus is referred to as the second Adam,
Abraham's seed,
the new Israel,
David's greater son,
the Exodus,
the Lamb,
the Lord of the Sabbath,
the Good Shepherd,
the rock struck by Moses,
and so on.
So if we're reading the Old Testament,
we are in safe ground
by seeing that Christ
is the fulfillment of these texts
in the Old Testament.
However, I would argue
more typologies exist
than what's explicitly quoted
in the New Testament
because the New Testament
doesn't quote every single
Old Testament passage.
So in these cases,
typology must be based
on actual historical correspondence
by recognizing repetitions of words,
phrases, themes, and images,
and to establish a typology,
you search for the inner biblical connections
that are there.
So you're kind of seeing
how they're paralleling each other.
So we have to avoid
arbitrary connections
in order to read the Scripture
on its own terms.
So this leads us to the last tool.
The last tool is
continuity and discontinuity.
It's exciting stuff.
Continuity and discontinuity.
The last tool,
continuity and discontinuity,
this refers to how the Old
and New Testament relate
to one another.
So if you see a lot of discontinuity
between the Old and New Testament,
then you tend toward
dispensationalism
in your interpretation
of the Bible.
Dispensationalism
sees different plans
based on the time period
by which God related
to his people.
On the other hand,
if you see a lot of continuity,
this is called covenant theology.
So the Westminster Catechism
is a classic example
of covenant theology.
If you Google
Dallas Theological Seminary
doctrinal statement,
that's the classic restatement
restatement of dispensationalist
theology.
So where people often
find themselves
on this spectrum
comes up in discussions
of how Israel
in the Old Covenant
relates to the Church
in the New Covenant.
Dispensationalists,
in essence,
believe that God's program
for Israel
and the Church
are entirely different.
There's complete discontinuity
between the age
of the Church
and the nation of Israel.
So biblical history
is thus divided
into different periods,
or in other words,
there are different dispensations.
So you see a lot of discontinuity
within that view.
In contrast,
classic covenant theology
sees a tremendous amount
of continuity
between the Old and New Testament.
So covenant theologians
see the fulfillment
of the promises to Israel
and the person
and work of Christ.
And the Church
is the organic unfolding
of God's purpose
for Israel.
The Church
doesn't replace Israel,
but it's the fulfillment
of God's original purpose
for Israel.
So covenant theology
is associated
with Reformed theology.
So you see a lot of continuity
within that view.
These are frameworks
to interpret the Bible.
So it's not a black and white category,
it's a spectrum of views.
So Presbyterians
are classic covenant theologians.
And they would see continuity
between the Old Testament
ordinance of circumcision
given to Abraham
and the New Testament
practice of baptism.
Presbyterians baptize infants.
And they see it
as a similar practice
of circumcising infants
in the Old Testament.
They're using the biblical tool
of continuity
in that discussion.
Baptists,
on the other hand,
are somewhere in the middle.
Baptists wanted to say,
yes, continuity,
but also discontinuity.
After all,
the New Covenant
is better than the Old One.
Jeremiah says this
of the New Covenant.
Behold,
the days are coming,
declares the Lord,
when I will make
a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and the house of Judah,
not like the covenant
that I made with their fathers.
See,
there's the discontinuity,
not like the covenant.
So no longer
shall I teach one another
or say to each other,
know the Lord,
because they will all know me,
from the least of them
to the greatest.
So in the Old Testament,
unregenerate people
could be circumcised,
where in the New Testament,
Baptists would say
only regenerate people
are called to be baptized.
So when discussing baptism,
we're all bringing to the table
continuity and discontinuity
and how we understand
the New Testament
and Old Testament
relating to each other.
So those are the tools
that we're going to need
as we walk through
the storylines of Scripture.
So this is,
that ends our intro class.
It's more theoretical today,
but for the rest of the classes,
we're just going to dive
right into the biblical storylines
from Genesis to Revelation.
So let me end in a word of prayer
and then we can just,
any time for questions.
Father in heaven,
I thank you for time
to be able to discuss your word.
Lord, I pray that we would come
to a deeper insight
into your Scriptures,
that we might exalt Jesus more,
that we might find Christ exalted
in the Old Testament
as Jesus taught his disciples.
And thank you for this time together.
In Jesus' name, amen.
So any questions?
It's 9.50, plenty of time
if anybody has some questions.
I have a question.
Thank you for that presentation.
And I have a question about,
probably yes,
about allegory.
Yeah.
Your view on it.
So you mentioned that
the biblical narrative is kind of,
you need to take it
from the perspective of God.
Like there's a single author.
Even though there's multiple
human authors,
there's a single author.
Yeah.
And then you also mentioned
the historical grammatical method
of evaluating a writing
based on its historical context.
So how do you,
that does seem like a tension
in the sense that
I can imagine situations
where the original author,
the original human author,
didn't perhaps fully understand
the art of the narrative
that God is reading.
Are there examples of that?
Yeah.
No, that's a good question.
I tend to think that
of those as canonical reading,
like that term canonical reading.
So in Genesis 1,
we see that God created
the heavens and the earth
and the spirits hovering
over the waters.
And God says,
let us make man in our image.
Now, did Moses understand
that the Trinity was at work
in creation?
I doubt it.
But when John 1,
he says,
in the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
I think John is clearly
meditating on Genesis 1.
And I would say
that it's more like
a progressive revelation.
Even the authors
or writers
didn't understand fully
what they were writing.
But as the revelation
becomes clearer,
as the light becomes brighter,
then we see,
oh yeah,
what he wrote there,
there's a deeper meaning there.
So I think
if we read the Old,
it's learning how to read
the Old Testament,
especially in light of
God's full revelation.
So I would not say,
I don't think
the Old Testament authors
knew all the implications
of what they were writing.
Same with David.
I mean,
he's talking about
the Messiah that's coming.
I don't think he knew
that was Jesus,
and that Jesus was
the God-man that would come
and die for sinners.
But yeah,
there is a tension there,
though.
I mean,
the use of allegory,
if we're going to,
depending on how we define it,
there are going to be
situations where
it could be a good illustration
that the author
didn't intend
to present to the audience.
And so Spurgeon
does something similar
where he says
that in the arc,
there's one window
in the arc
where Noah looked out
into the seas,
and Spurgeon says,
well,
this is like a window
because there's only
one faith
in which we can see
our Lord Jesus,
and we have to look out
through the one window
of the one Savior.
And I'm like,
that's a good example
of the nature of faith.
Did Noah,
did the authors mean that
when they wrote that?
I don't know,
but I think he was
illustrating something
for his ears.
So, yeah,
Spurgeon is much more,
competent at exposition
than I am.
So I know
there are faithful men
that have used allegory
to their hearer's benefit.
A dumb person
would often caution us
about reading
the New Testament
back into the earth.
Like,
you don't just take
Genesis 1's we
and go,
there's the Trinity!
You go,
there's the Genesis 1's we,
and then it's drawn out
and you start reading
the theme of the plurality
of God.
There's the counsel
of God and Job,
until you see,
finally,
so one of the emcees
of biblical mythology
is we don't just
take the we
and go,
oh,
there's the Trinity!
Stick that,
plug that into my
Trinity module
of my systematic theology!
We go,
okay,
God has a certain
kind of plurality
about it.
And we trace the thread
and see how it develops.
What's this theme
look like?
in the end,
we start to see,
ah,
here's what has been
being gotten at.
Here's where that
shoots for
in the end.
Yeah.
That's a great example.
Yeah.
And that's why I mentioned
the,
it's,
biblical theologians,
you have to
take it in
its historical context.
We can read
the New Testament
back and the Old Testament
all over the place,
but
it might not be
something that,
it could be a proof testing,
proof texting,
where the authors
really didn't mean that,
it's not really
part of the text,
so we have to be careful.
But see how it would,
it would complement
systematic theology
because when you're,
when you're a systematician,
you go back
into Genesis 3
or Genesis 2,
let us make man
in our own image.
They're going to put that
in their Trinity
topical question,
but they also need
to be a biblical theologian
and ask themselves,
okay,
what does this mean
in the context?
And...
It doesn't kind of
circulate between
the systematic theology
and biblical theology
or your biblical theology.
Those threads
start to inform
the systematic theology.
You've got your doctrine
and they start to inform
the reading of
the whole narrative.
Yeah.
Okay,
so then does it,
lend greater clarity
to some of those threads
if you read the Bible
the way it's written
or if you read the Bible
chronologically?
Hmm.
It's a good question.
Or doesn't it matter?
I'm thinking of
where would be...
I think chronologically...
Here's what's coming to mind.
I haven't thought
about this before.
The biblical theologian
must be aware
of the chronology
and also
the literary structure
of the book.
So it is very important,
I think,
chronology-wise
when you're interpreting text.
You know,
for example,
I mean,
I wish we could get into this,
but New Testament authors
do take a lot of emphasis
on what came first
and what came second.
So I'm thinking of,
I think it's Galatians,
where it says,
like,
Abraham was accounted
as righteous
because of his faith
and then circumcision
was given.
So that chronology
is very important
because now we know
he wasn't accounted
righteous based on
the law.
and I think
that is the apostles
used in terms
of chronology.
I don't know,
depending on,
like,
Leviticus comes
after Exodus,
like,
is there meaning there?
I'm not sure.
One of the places
you could say this also
is in the Psalms
where we have
Psalms from many
different time periods,
but there's also
a structure
to the Psalms
as a whole.
Yeah.
So if you were
to try and,
like,
take each Psalms
to get where
it goes chronologically,
I think that would
mess up your reading
with the Psalms.
But you also want
to be aware
of where it fits chronologically.
So I'm going to go
with my question,
validity.
Yeah.
So maybe just an awareness
that there's a canonical order
and there's a chronological order
and both are there
for important reasons
that we should be aware of.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yes.
You know,
the chronology
and I think
the canonical reading
as well.
Yeah,
exactly.
The chart I gave you
of the timeline there,
it's helpful to know
exactly what's being,
like,
what culture
and worldview
is the prophet
engaging in?
Because if,
because we'll get
into this later,
but Isaiah is going
to draw on a lot
of themes
from the Exodus
and the second Exodus.
that's like a prophesying
to the new creation.
So they're,
they're using images
that the people
would have understood
what that meant.
And I think
that has to do
with chronology
and also canonical reading.
The ordering
is also shaped
by our understanding
of the theology.
Yeah.
Yes.
I'm still puzzling
over the criticism
of allegories
in a sense
where
it seems like
the criticism
is that people
are taking,
extrapolating too far
from the verses
and not that it's
in terms of allegory
itself.
That is,
you can take
other verses
and
extrapolating
is it.
That makes sense
to me like,
yeah,
it depends on,
more out of it
than it's really there.
But then it's nothing
to do with the way
that you're getting
more out of it.
And allegory
is slippery
because
if we're just
extrapolating,
then that
could just be
like application.
Some people
mean different
things by allegories.
I think the
suspicion for allegory
is,
comes from
the Reformation
because when
the Reformers
laid down
the principle
of solo scriptura
or the perspicuity
of Scripture,
what they meant
was Scripture
is clear,
but it's also
self-interpreted.
And what the
Catholic Church
did before
then was
they would
allegorically
interpret the Bible
and they would say
our interpretation
is correct
because of the
infallible teaching
of the Roman
Catholic Church.
And so Calvin
wanted to say,
no, no,
I mean,
we're,
like the Scriptures
interpret themselves.
We don't need
a class of priests
that can interpret
for us.
And that was
really where
allegory became
very suspicious,
I think,
to the Reformers.
But,
and that's
kind of an abusive
allegory.
Like some of the
interpretations
were pretty
far-fetched.
They didn't have
to do with
like the Trinity
or like salvation
or like Christ
or the cross.
It was,
you know,
the nature of,
you know,
the Archbishop
of Canterbury
or something like that.
You know,
it was like
that's the allegorical
reading of the Old Testament
based on like
the Bishop of Rome
or something like that.
Well,
I guess what you're
saying is like
there are many cases
where allegories
are intended.
Like,
maybe the number
five is a bit
of a stretch.
The number of 12
has some more faces.
So you want to
locate these things.
It's the thread thing
again.
It's,
is there actually
a thread
or are you just
like plucking
a point out
and going
boop?
Yeah.
Boop.
Yeah.
So number,
numerology is,
is important
in biblical studies.
So number seven
is very important.
So if we understand
seven to be like
the perfect completeness
of something,
then I think
the authors intended
to communicate that.
Now,
if we,
if there's six
and then we just say,
well,
there's six,
I don't know.
Six is the perfect number.
God worked for six days.
This is what we do,
like,
right?
Yeah.
Because you add up
its divisors
and you get this.
Yeah.
You multiply them
and it's the same number.
Yeah.
So it's part of the number.
But to your,
to your point though,
I think there is,
and in the final analysis,
there will be
different,
differing opinions
based on what this
would have meant
to the reader
at the time.
So you can have
scholars disagree
and be like,
this really meant that
in that,
in that culture.
This meant that.
I mean,
so there are
disagreements about
what was originally
intended to,
be communicated.
So it's not a,
it's,
it's not an easy,
it's not an easy thing.
I mean,
there are,
there are scholars
for a reason.
They're kind of talking
about this,
writing about it.
So yeah.
Did you think
you were going to talk
more about allegory
in future classes
or did,
I couldn't get what you,
I guess what you said,
you mentioned
there's more common
I don't know
if that was for this class
or what that was.
For this class,
but I've,
I can come back
to allegory
if that would be helpful
to people.
Okay.
Yeah.
I'm just going to
wait,
I guess it's more
a point.
I guess it's more
about that
allegory also,
like,
some people use
allegory to dismiss
the literal interpretation
or to replace it
or whatever.
but you can also
use it to just
supplement it.
You can be a
both-in.
Oh yeah,
it does mean
a rock was there
that water came out
to give,
you know,
migration to the
Israelites,
but it's also Christ
and move on
and that sometimes
takes the edge off
of people's use
of that allegory
because they're like,
well,
I'm not denying
that's a little
thing.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah,
I think if we're
clear on
what we're,
if we're going
to allegorize,
I think it's always
helpful to be clear
about what we mean.
Like,
if we're saying
the author intended
this allegory
and it's the secret
hidden meaning
that I'm telling you
right now
and you guys
should listen
to my interpretation,
that's problematic.
but if we're saying,
hey,
this is,
yeah,
this is a good
illustration maybe
of what Christ
did for his people,
I think that's
very helpful.
I mean,
warranted.
I mean,
I think the early
patristic era
of church fathers
would have,
I mean,
they,
as you know,
like very allegory heavy
because they wanted
to preach Christ
in every scripture.
So,
there's,
it's a fascinating,
it's a fascinating
conversation.
I really have just
learned about allegory
in the past few months
and it's,
it's so interesting.
I also think
that the problem
with like,
we're trying to evaluate
what's a good allegory
or what's a bad allegory.
But in some ways
that conversation
is the same about
what's a good interpretation
and what's a bad
interpretation.
Maybe in scripture
and when you start
asking those questions
they're great questions
but eventually
you just keep probing
and it,
you know,
you start,
you gotta,
you start losing
your handholds
and it's like,
well,
what does this mean
that it's,
like we took history
for example,
you know,
or culture.
Like,
well,
what,
once God might
think something
is cultural
and relevant
and another might
disagree
and,
you know,
I think we have,
when you get to those
squishy gray areas
that you just,
you point the clearer
bits of scripture
and you trust in the Holy Spirit
and you guide it.
Yeah.
And I,
it is,
there is a problem
that where people
take only the story
and they just dismiss
the actual individual text.
So,
you'll have people
that will talk about
this belief
in Second Temple Judaism
and this was all,
it was all about,
it was all about this belief
and they just kind of
dismiss the exposition part
and they go right
into the storyline
and I don't think
that's helpful
and it's helpful
to realize that
not everyone
had the same belief
in Second Temple Judaism.
You had the Sadducees,
the Pharisees,
the Essenes,
you know,
they weren't a uniform,
homogeneous group.
So,
you do have
biblical theologians
I think that are kind of,
you know,
like,
they're putting too much
emphasis on the storyline.
So,
it is...
Let's talk a little bit
about how you
tell
what continues
and what is.
Where the breaks are
between, like,
old and new
covenant
or do you want to do that
when you talk about
covenants?
Yeah,
so interesting.
I,
to answer that
I have to kind of
show my colors
and...
Right.
So,
I am a,
I'm a covenant theologian.
I,
I grew with covenant theology.
Having said that,
I know a lot of
godly dispensationalists,
like,
John MacArthur
is one of them.
Like,
so,
he is much smarter
than I am
and he is much
godlier than I am
but he's dispensationalist.
But I would,
I tend to agree
with covenant theology.
And,
I would say the,
every,
every covenant
has condition,
has
unconditional
aspects to it
and then conditional
aspects to it.
Every single covenant
does.
And when you read
the New Testament,
they're picking up
on some of the
unconditional language
and they're saying
that continues
through into
the new covenant.
So,
the Abrahamic covenant,
like the blessed,
the offspring
that will bring
blessings to the world,
that's clearly Christ,
right?
But there also
are discontinuity
within there
because we're not,
Christians,
we're not going to
inherit a land in Israel.
We're going to inherit
an entire universe.
So,
I think you have to
read the New Testament
with the Old Testament
in mind
and seeing how,
like the prism,
like what's,
what's continuous,
what's discontinuous.
Having said that,
I mean,
dispensationalists
disagree with me.
So,
I'm happy to,
I'm not going to
die on that hill.
So,
we all love,
I mean,
both sides love Christ
and they,
they believe in the gospel
and the word.
So,
this is like one of those
like secondary issues
that people have,
like baptism,
simply baptize infants
and baptists don't.
Well,
I can,
we can still affirm
that there are,
you know,
these are secondary issues,
not primary.
Well,
that's,
that's something
on the,
that tension
between the covenant
and dispensational,
like that example
of baptism.
What,
what trips me up
sometimes,
and maybe we'll talk
about this later,
is like,
I know that the nature
of salvation
in the Bible
is consistent,
but it's,
there's weird passages
in Jude
about Jesus
going down
and preaching
to the spirits
in prison
and Lewis interprets
that one way
and you've got it
alvarized in,
in Narnia and stuff
and,
and I have friends
who believe,
yeah,
oh yeah,
Sheol,
yeah,
that was a place
but it's not anymore.
You know,
like,
and I'm like,
but I thought salvation
was by faith in Christ
even before they knew
who Christ was
in Hebrews talks
about Moses
seeing the benefit
of Christ
as better than
the benefit
of the riches
of Egypt
and I'm like,
uh,
how do we talk
about this?
How do we look
at this?
So,
I have no problem
saying that
the faith of Abraham
could be applied
to a future grace
that came by
the crucifixion
and resurrection
of Christ
but what,
like,
where did his spirit go?
That's,
that's the secondary issue
but it's sort of
kind of informed back
to how we look
at the primary issue
of salvation
like,
okay,
so,
what does that mean
for each of us
when we say,
how do we put
our faith
in the proper place?
And so,
I don't know,
it's just,
that,
that's a,
that's a big one
for me
that,
biblical theology
and maybe
a closer study
would be helpful.
Yeah,
I'm going to write
that down,
that's,
that's helpful.
I agree,
I mean,
so covenant theology,
there's,
there's this all
encompassing covenant
of grace
that theologians
will talk about
and that,
they said the covenant
of grace
means that
from beginnings
and people are saved
by faith alone
and Christ alone
by grace alone
to the glory of God alone.
Like,
from Adam
all the way
into the last saint
who's going to die
before Christ returns.
Dispensationalists,
they will not,
dispensationalists
do not say,
I don't want to,
they don't say
that you're saved
by works
and then you're
saved by grace.
You're always
saved by faith.
I mean,
they would,
they would affirm that.
But there are,
like,
what do they say,
what are they putting
their faith in?
That's the,
what dispensationalists
will say.
Well,
they clearly didn't
have Christ
in the Old Testament.
Covenant theology
said,
well,
there's shadows
of Christ,
the offering
to the Lamb
that they could,
Christ is going
to do something,
God's going to do
something in the future
to solve for sin.
But yeah,
this is a,
I'm going to write
that down,
so I hopefully
come back to that.
Okay,
so I think,
sounds like
they're getting out,
so thank you all
and I look forward
to...
applause
and I look forward...
effects
...
here are a full
question.