Tag: study

T. Desmond Alexander on Biblical Theology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Justin Taylor posted an interview of T. Desmond Alexander by Andrew Naselli on the topic of biblical theology. Biblical theology has revolutionized my understanding and appreciation of the Bible, and I thought this brief interview was a good introduction to biblical theology. I’m sharing the first part of this interview but encourage you to read the whole thing.

Consider picking up one of Alexander’s books on biblical theology, too. I have The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology on my shelf (it’s really good), and From Eden to the New Jerusalem is on my wish list.

1. What is biblical theology? How does it compare to systematic theology?

For me biblical theology is about understanding how the Bible as a whole should be read so that we can appreciate its message as the Word of God. I’m still a learner as far as this is concerned. What I’ve found to be helpful is discovering themes that tie together the big picture of Scripture. I’ve tried to convey something of this, hopefully in an accessible way, in my book, From Eden to the New Jerusalem. For me, it’s important that Christians grasp the grand story of what God is doing. Through the story, which I take to be historically true, we begin to understand something of ourselves and the world we live in.

It is this story dimension that sets biblical theology apart from systematic theology. While I think that there is an important place for a systematic understanding of what we believe, it is through Scripture that God speaks to people as they grasp the biblical metanarrative. Hopefully, good biblical theology sheds valuable light on how we should read the Bible. For this reason, I think biblical theology is exceptionally important.

2. Briefly sketch out an example of addressing a theme with a biblical theological approach (e.g., temple, throne of God, evil, lamb, tree of life, people of God, rest).

I’ve said something about most of the examples you list in my most recent book. So let me pick something that might not seem so obvious: the great city.

Fundamental to my understanding of biblical theology is the idea that God created this world with the intention that it should become his dwelling-place, a temple-city filled with people who love and serve him (as reflected in Rev. 20-21). This was the original creation plan. Adam and Eve’s betrayal of God threw the grand design into chaos. Created with the skills to be city-builders, humanity set about building god-less cities. Exhibit number one is obviously Babel. However, in Hebrew Babel is also the name for Babylon. Interestingly, the building of Babel/Babylon is associated with Nimrod in Genesis 10, who is also responsible for the building of Nineveh in Assyria. As a mighty hunter “˜against God’ (not “˜before God’) Nimrod is the founder of a city/kingdom that opposes God’s city/kingdom. Remarkably, the story in Genesis to Kings ends with what appears to be a victory for Nimrod’s descendants (the Assyrians and the Babylonians). The city of God, Jerusalem, is sacked, God’s house is destroyed, and the royal line through which the nations are to be saved is exiled.

Yet all is not lost, for the story does not end here. This big picture is important because it reveals how deep-seated aspirations to create human empires oppose what God desires. Obviously, the OT has lots to say about this (e.g., Habakkuk, Daniel). However, the NT picks up the same contrast. For example, the author of Hebrews has something important to say about the city of God, starting with Abraham. Likewise, the book of Revelation draws an important contrast between the here-and-now Babylon and the future New Jerusalem.

I hope that this very brief biblical-theological sketch of the city makes sense. We’re only scratching the surface. Yet it is a theme that pervades the whole of Scripture….

[Read the entire interview]

Meditating on Mediator-Types

~ Bob Hayton

Last week, our pastor taught on Noah and the Flood. As we read Gen. 8:20-22, I started thinking about Noah as a type of Christ. This got me thinking and I came up with the beginning of a list of Mediator-Types in Scripture.

The following pattern merits further mediation and study.

God’s punishment and/or wrath for sin > a Mediator > a burnt offering for sin and/or prayer > God stops his judgment and blesses mankind

Flood destroys the earth > Noah > burnt offering Gen. 8:20-22 > a new covenant and pledge to preserve earth

Sodom & Gomorrah’s judgment > Abraham > prayer Gen. 19:27-29 > rescue of Lot

Death of firstborn > Moses > Passover lamb, blood applied to doorposts Exod. 12 > Destroyer passes over

Angel of the Lord destroys 70,000 > David > burnt offerings on the threshing floor of Ornan
1 Chron. 21:14-17, 26-27 > Angel sheathes his sword

Any other examples come to mind? I realize this is just a bare sketch, but it the Mediator theme in the Old Testament is a great study.

Mark — Good News of Jesus, the Suffering Savior (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton

Introduction – Mark 1:1

–continued from part 1

3. Theme Verse — Mark 1:1

A. Gospel — (Evangel / Good News, from euangelizomai – to evangelize)
1) The “Gospel” is connected by the “as” in vs. 2 to the quotation in vs. 2-3. The intimation there as well as in 1:14-15 is that the “Gospel” is a fulfillment of something foretold in the Old Testament. — The “Gospel” is connected by the “as” in vs. 2 to the quotation in vs. 2-3. The intimation there as well as in 1:14-15 is that the “Gospel” is a fulfillment of something foretold in the Old Testament. [See also, Rom. 1:1-4, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Gal. 3:8, 1 Pt. 1:25 and Ps. 40:9, 68:11, 96:2, Is. 40:9, 41:27, 52:7, 61:1]

B. The Identity of Jesus — Christ, the Son of God
1) Christ = Messiah = Anointed One
A messianic expectation was already present in Jesus day (Luke 1). An expectation of deliverance from enemies and the Messiah as King-Deliverer was current.
2) Son of God, this title has OT precedence. Psalm 2 & 2 Sam. 7 join the title Son and Christ together as we see here in Mark 1. Son was a title given to David’s heir, it was also used of Israel, as being God’s Son (Hos. 11:1). But Mark shows that for Jesus, this means even more than the idea of Messianic Ruler.

DISCUSSION: How was Jesus less and more than what the Jews of His day were expecting in a Messiah? How might Mark 1:2-3 help us see what aspect of the Messiah’s ministry that Jesus was going to focus on in his first advent? Jot down your observations.

Less = Not the physical deliverer (that is the second advent). Not concerned with Jewish state and Jews alone.
More = Suffering Servant (hinted at from Mark 1:2-3’s focus on Isaiah 40), Son of God, a spiritual Savior.

3) The identity of Jesus certainly is key to what makes the Gospel good. And the identity of Jesus is a key theme of Mark.

The words Christ and Son (of God, or of the Highest), as a title for Jesus, appear in a uniquely important way in Mark. Jesus rarely calls himself these titles, preferring instead Son of Man which appears 14 times at least of Jesus in Mark.

  Christ / Son of David / King of Jews     Son of God / Son of the Highest  
1:1 (by Mark) 1:1 (by Mark)
8:29 (by Peter) 1:11 (by God the Father)
10:47-48 (by a blind man) 3:11 (by a demon)
14:61 (by the high priest) 5:7 (by demons)
15:2 (by Pilate) 9:7 (by God the Father)
15:32 (in derision at the cross) 14:61 (by the high priest)
  15:39 (by the centurion)

DISCUSSION: What can we see from this arrangement? What stands out?

After declaring Jesus is Christ and the Son of God, Mark proceeds to keep this quiet and show how people are not understanding His identity. Jesus never declares himself to be the Messiah directly. He distances Himself form some of the wrong ideas of a physical overthrow of governments as a result of his first coming. The climactic mid-point of the book is Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah (8:29). The title Son of God is only at the end of the book used of Jesus by a person, and it is a Roman Centurion at the climax of Jesus’ suffering on the cross. In contrast before his end while on the cross, the Jews derided him challenging his claim to be Messiah.

4. Key Themes in Mark

A. Identity of Jesus
1) See questions about Jesus: 1:27, 2:7, 4:41, 6:2-3, 8:29, 10:18, 14:61.
2) See also statements of amazement about Jesus: 1:27-28, 2:12, 4:41, 5:42, 6:2-3, 6:14, 7:37, 10:24-26, 10:32, 12:17.
3) Notice the bewilderment and lack of understanding displayed by the disciples throughout the book 6:52, 7:18, 8:17-18, 8:21, 9:10, 9:32, 10:24-26.
4) Finally see how Jesus continually asks people to keep quiet about who He is: 1:34, 1:43-45, 3:10-12, 5:43, 7:24, 7:36-37, 8:26, 8:30, 9:9.

B. Mission of Jesus 1:38, 2:17, 10:45.

C. Importance of Faith: 1:15, 2:5, 4:40, 5:34, 5:36, 9:24, 9:42, 10:52, 11:22-24, 11:31, 13:13, 15:32.

D. Inevitability of Persecution 1:12-13, 3:21, 3:31-35, 8:34-38, 10:30-34, 10:45, 13:8-13.

Download this study in PDF ~ See all posts in this series.

The posts in this series include notes from a Men’s Bible Study I’m teaching on the Gospel of Mark every other Saturday morning. I am sharing them so they might possibly be a blessing to others. Feel free to download the lesson sheets and use them for your own purposes.

Mark — Good News of Jesus, the Suffering Savior (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Introduction – Mark 1:1

1. “Gospel” — A New Kind of Book

A. Mark’s opening verse gave a title to a new kind of book — a Gospel.
B. The non-inspired titles: “The Gospel According to Mark, Matthew, Luke, John” likely derive from Mark 1:1.
C. A Gospel is not an objective, historically focused biography.
D. They are similar to other “lives” of philosophers and political leaders in ancient times — they are crafted to tell a story with a goal in mind for the reader.
E. They are different in that they focus on Jesus Christ in a unique way — they unpack the theological significance of Jesus Christ and give us the true Good News.
F. They don’t simply give us what happened, they tell us what to believe about what happened. They are in essence, preaching materials. They tell the story of God’s saving actions in Christ Jesus.
G. The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke and it is believed that Matthew & Luke made use of Mark in the writing of their Gospels. They certainly followed his pattern. Each of the four authors had particular emphases in his writing.

DISCUSSION: What are some benefits to the four-fold Gospel that we have in the New Testament? Why four books instead of one? Why are the books similar and different. What can we learn from that? Record your thoughts.

2. Mark — The First Gospel

A. Author
The Book is anonymous, but from early on it has been attributed to Mark — the John Mark of Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:5, 15:36-39, Col. 4:10, Philemon 24, 1 Pet. 5:13, 2 Tim. 4:11.

Here’s the earliest attribution of the book to Mark, by Papias in AD 140 (but known to us through Eusebius’ quote in roughly AD 320):

The Elder (likely John) said this also: Mark, who became Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of his followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s sayings. So Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statements therein.

Another early tradition (AD 160-180) reads: “Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered’ because he had short fingers in comparison with the size of the rest of his body. He was Peter’s interpreter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Interestingly, Mark received relatively little attention in the preserved writings of the church, up until around the 1800s for the most part. There are aspects of Mark which make it difficult, and Augustine assumed Mark just offered up an abbreviated version of Matthew which was certainly larger, and which Augustine thought was written first. (However, often in the sections Mark shares with Matthew, Mark’s account is more detailed and longer than Matthew’s.)

B. Date
Most put this after the death of Peter in AD 64 and before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This is our best guess.

This becomes important when we remember the intense persecution of the Christians at the hands of Nero in this time, Paul was martyred in AD 67 near the end of the persecution period. (see 1:12-14, 8:34-38, 10:30-34, 10: 45, 13:9-13)

C. Destination and Place of Writing
Both are likely Rome. Mark is first quoted in 1 Clement & the Shepherd of Hermas, both associated with Rome. Church tradition is almost united in having Mark writing to the Romans from Rome, and Mark is associated with Peter who almost certainly spent the last few years of his life in Rome where he was martyred. Clues in the letter point to a Gentile audience and possibly even a Latin / Roman audience. Grammatical points as well as many explanations of Jewish customs and translations of Aramaic into Greek given in Mark.

D. Purpose
We can only sketch ideas on this and as we study Mark we’ll learn if we are right or not in our ideas here.
1) To make the Gospel accessible to Gentiles (a missiological aim)
2) To encourage those facing persecutions, particularly the beleaguered Christians in Rome.
3) To explain and defend the faith — particularly the nature of Christ being fully man and fully divine (as well as how Jesus fulfilled and superseded the Messianic expectation of the Jews)
4) To explain the significance of the cross (almost half the book is devoted to the last week of Christ’s life– the passion week), and Christ’s death is foretold in 3:6.

DISCUSSION: What other thoughts come to mind when you think of characteristics or traits of Mark. Are there other themes which come to mind?

3. Theme Verse — Mark 1:1

A. Gospel — (Evangel / Good News, from euangelizomai – to evangelize)
1) The “Gospel” is connected by the “as” in vs. 2 to the quotation in vs. 2-3. The intimation there as well as in 1:14-15 is that the “Gospel” is a fulfillment of something foretold in the Old Testament.

DISCUSSION: Can you think of other places where the “Gospel” is rooted in the Old Testament? Is “the Gospel” really in the Old Testament? Jot down your observations and thoughts.

Rom. 1:1-4 & 1 Cor. 15:1-4 root the Gospel in the OT Scriptures. Initial Gospel sermons stemmed from OT texts (Acts 2:16-36, 13:16-41). Gal. 3:8, Abraham had the gospel preached to him beforehand. 1 Pet. 1:25 ties the word of Isaiah 40 to the gospel preached in the NT era (as does Mk. 1:1 with 1:2-3 – Is. 40 again is quoted) [cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12]. OT “Gospel” texts are Ps. 40:9, 68:11, 96:2, Is. 40:9, 41:27, 52:7, 61:1). The Good News of God’s saving reign, and the ushering in of an era of righteousness is foretold in Isaiah. Mark connects Jesus’ ministry with the beginning of that fulfillment. “The beginning of the Gospel…” (Already / Not Yet fulfillment)

Download this study in PDF ~ See all posts in this series.

The posts in this series include notes from a Men’s Bible Study I’m teaching on the Gospel of Mark every other Saturday morning. I am sharing them so they might possibly be a blessing to others. Feel free to download the lesson sheets and use them for your own purposes.

“Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism” by Joel Beeke

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Calvinism is all the buzz these days. Last year, Time Magazine listed the rise of “The New Calvinism” as number 3 on a list of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now” (see excerpt here). The five points of Calvinism are gaining adherents at a rapid rate. At the same time, a deep-seated rejection of Calvinism remains popular in large swaths of evangelicalism.

When it comes to the internet, fierce debates over Calvinism are the norm. Calvinists routinely suspect the worst of their “Arminian” opponents who are often pictured as near-Pelagians. Arminians think that Calvinists tout a dour, sour-faced God who gleefully condemns people to Hell with no chance for salvation. No wonder then, that Calvinists don’t evangelize.

From my vantage point, as a convert to Calvinism from a Baptist non-Calvinist viewpoint, both the Calvinist superiority complex and the Calvinism-is-of-the-devil overreaction share a common shortfall. Neither extreme really appreciates the full ramifications of Calvinism for all of life. Both have a certain amount of ignorance with respect to the history and teaching of Calvinism from the Reformation onward. A historical perspective and an appreciation for Calvinism’s impact on worldview and theology beyond the rather specific and limited focus of the five points would do much good all around.

It is these reasons and more which make Joel Beeke’s book Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism such an important resource. This book is packed with material illustrating how Calvinism impacts all of life.

The book starts off with an historical treatment of the origins of what we call Calvinism and a look at several of the Reformed confessions. Then it moves on to a Scriptural defense of the teachings of Calvinism. Here we find a treatment of the 5 points of Calvinism as well as the 5 solas. We also find that the sovereignty of God, or theocentrism is the doctrinal heart and soul of Calvinism.

The book goes further and surveys the piety of Calvinism and its impact in the church. In these sections we learn a lot from the Puritans on sanctification and church life. Particular emphasis is placed on the emphasis of the role of preaching in worship, which is truly Calvinism’s gift to the wider church.

The book then goes on to how Calvinism provides a “theology for all of life”. I was particularly struck by this section. The discussion of a Puritan home and marriage was eye-opening. Indeed the medieval era had downplayed the physical aspects of the marital union. The clergy were above sex, or were supposed to be, and that was left for mistresses and secret elopements. The marriage wasn’t about that, it was a societal convention. The Puritans took the Bible’s teaching on the importance of the marital union and brought back a Biblical morality and a healthy enjoyment of physical pleasures within the confines of marriage.

I also enjoyed the chapter on vocation, and how Calvinism invests the idea of a life’s calling with great significance. Political and ethical questions are also addressed from the perspective of Calvinism.

The book concludes with a chapter by Sinclair Ferguson on doxology as the end goal of Calvinism. As it was John Piper’s ministry in particular that drew me toward Calvinism, I can testify that Calvinistic theology if it is actively embraced and understood should tend toward a doxological thrust in life. Everything should be seen as flowing from God’s good hand, and our very salvation is a free gift of God’s grace. Calvinism should make us worshipful and humble, not proud.

Joel Beeke and the other contributors to this book are to be commended for showing us how doctrine should impact all of life. They open up the horizons of contemporary Christians to see the beauty of faithful orthodox piety of previous generations. The book does get long and can be quite varied at times. But the work can be seen as an anthology from which to glean what you find interesting and helpful. I recommend this book heartily.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com, Westminster Bookstore, and direct from Reformation Trust

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Reformation Trust Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a favorable review.