Written by Richard C. Barcellos |
Monday, September 27, 2021
Fesko says, “for those who criticize biblical theology as a novelty, they seem to forget the scriptural maxim that there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9)” (474). Though the phrase biblical theology is of modern origin, the hermeneutical concepts and trajectories of what we now call biblical theology are at least as old as the Hebrew canon itself. They also appear in the intertestamental era, the NT, the patristic era, the Middle Ages, and in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. Biblical theology is older than many think.

In J. V. Fesko’s contribution to a book in honor of Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., he addresses an important issue—the antiquity of biblical theology. He acknowledges that there are some who think biblical theology finds its origin in classical liberalism and rationalism. He quotes Jay Adams as claiming that “Geerhardus Vos rescued it from the liberal theologians” (J. V. Fesko, “On the Antiquity of Biblical Theology” in Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey C. Waddington, Editors, Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in the Service of the Church, Essays in Honor of Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008], 444). Even D. G. Hart claims, “The problem for biblical theology is that it is a recent scholarly effort, originating only in the late nineteenth century” (444). These detractors notwithstanding, Fesko states his thesis as follows:

…it is the thesis of this essay that biblical theology has been a part of the church’s interpretive history from the earliest years, not simply in the patristic period, but stretching back into the very formation of the Old Testament (OT) canon, evidenced in its own intra-canonical interpretation. (445)

Then he adds these words: “In recognizing the antiquity of biblical theology, we will see how fundamental the discipline is to the hermeneutical and theological process” (445). Fesko claims that biblical theology goes all the way back to the OT. He is fully aware that its formal inception occurred in the eighteenth century; that is, as a distinct discipline within, or at least vying for entrance into, the theological encyclopedia. But he also realizes that a concept can be present and functioning in antiquity while the word or phrase we presently use to describe that concept is absent. In other words, he does not fall into the word-concept fallacy.
After reviewing Gabler’s[1] contribution in the early days of biblical theology in the modern era, Fesko then devotes four pages to Geerhardus Vos. The reason is probably two-fold: 1) The book is in honor of Gaffin who is a follower of Vos in the Reformed tradition of biblical theology and 2) Vos is the most important modern figure in terms of shaping biblical theology within the Reformed tradition.
Note two of Fesko’s three “key ideas…in Vos’s understanding of biblical theology” (450). First, “the biblical theologian does not treat the biblical text from merely a historical perspective” (450). This is what the liberals had done. Vos’s concern is to respect the Scriptures as revelation from God. This is why he preferred “the term history of special revelation in lieu of biblical theology” (450). Since Scripture is revelation from God, “the entire corpus is an organic whole” (450). This is why Vos sees biblical theology as “the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity” (450).
Second, “unlike Gabler’s understanding of biblical theology, Vos believed the discipline focused on Christ and covenant, which is the manner in which the church learns redemption accomplished and applied” (451). The Bible unfolds itself in a Christ-centered manner via its covenants. Everything before Christ prepares the way for Christ. Fesko quotes Vos as follows, “All Old Testament redemption is but the saving activity of God working toward the realization of this goal [i.e., Christ], the great supernatural prelude to the Incarnation and the Atonement” (451). The various stages of Bible history are redemptive epochs gradually and progressively “unfolding…God’s revelation in Christ…manifested through the various covenants…” (451).
In a section of the chapter entitled BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THROUGHTOUT THE AGES, Fesko seeks to show “how various interpreters throughout the centuries have employed the hermeneutics of biblical theology, which therefore demonstrates the antiquity of the discipline” (453).
Read More

Jesus was a master at engaging people within their culture, whether they approached Him as friend or foe. He related to people without typical cultural filters. Even His primary followers had different backgrounds and livelihoods. A classic example is Jesus engaging a woman of questionable character at Jacob’s well near Sychar in the region of Samaria. It was culturally inappropriate for a Jewish man to engage a Samaritan woman in conversation.

It’s been said that history is a wonderful teacher, but a terrible master.
In this guest article, Trip Kimball uses history as a teacher. It’s a scholarly look into three significant ways that Christians throughout history have responded to the changes around us —  both good and bad —  to give us a better understanding of how to respond to today’s cultural shifts in a biblical way.
— Karl Vaters

Culture is dynamic. Fluid and fickle. Culture changes over time, sometimes with extreme pendular swings. Popular culture is reflective of shared beliefs, values, and social norms.
Each swing of culture has its own trends, like currents within the ocean, as movements within the larger cultural context.
People tend to respond in one of three general ways to pendular swings in culture: to reject, embrace, or engage each swing. Only one of these approaches is effective in bringing helpful change or productive dialogue.
These pendular swings of culture have one fixed point — human nature. They all pivot on self, our basic nature. Not our identity but our being, our innate essence centered on self-preservation.
On the surface self-preservation makes sense. It’s expected, natural. But when the self is corrupt or fragmented it’s not so good. At its basest level, self-preservation is bound to cause conflict. These conflicts disrupt our shared experiences, resulting in culture clashes.
These culture clashes are very noticeable in cross-cultural missionary experiences, but they also happen across and within sub-cultures.
1) Rejection of Cultural Shifts
Rejection is the preferred approach of those who oppose a culture shift, especially when it impacts them personally. It’s not just resistance but rejection — an unwillingness to accept or consider a cultural change.
Rejection of a cultural shift is a defense of what was, an attempt to turn back the tide of change. On the surface, to those who are opposing the change, it seems gallant and right. But it takes on a sense of righteousness. And indeed, it may very well be a righteous stance.
It’s not hard to find exceptional examples of resistance to evil. The prophet Daniel and his three cohorts (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) refused to worship anyone else but their God, the Most-High God,  the Living God (Daniel 3:12–18, 26; 6:10–23, 26).
Their stand would cost them their lives, but God intervened.
Lessons from History
Taking a righteous stand against evil requires a willingness to die for righteousness’ sake. And God doesn’t always intervene.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a modern-day example of this. He was a Lutheran pastor/theologian who stood up to Nazism and paid for it with his life. His testimony is an example of resisting an evil trend.
Not all resistance to cultural change is so righteous or wise. The Jesus People Movement and the Charismatic Renewal of the mid 1960s and early -70s (parallel moves of God’s Spirit in America) were largely resisted and condemned by the established churches of that time.
The resistance proved foolish and fruitless. It reminds me of what Gamaliel warned Jewish leaders about when they considered contending with the followers of Jesus; …if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it — lest you even be found to fight against God (Acts 5:39).
This is as a lesson to consider when attempting to resist/reject present cultural trends. The resistance of Bonhoeffer and others in the German Confessing Church did not stem the tide of Nazism. That took a world war. And yet the Nazi mindset and influence lives on.
The Jesus Movement and Charismatic Renewal did prevail and reshape the practice of Christianity during the cultural upheaval of the 1960s and -70s. It powerfully impacted American culture, then sadly faded. What was once a powerful cultural influence morphed into the present common approach to culture.
2) Embracing Cultural Shifts
The flip side of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the German Confessing Church’s resistance to Nazism is the German Christian movement. This movement was composed of fanatic Nazi Protestants, a politicized church subculture that was devoid of the Spirit of God.
This movement embraced the political-cultural wave of Hitler’s Nazi regime. They reshaped theology to buttress their nationalistic beliefs, distorting the gospel into their own racist image.
Another spiritual movement in America during the 1970s and early -80s was a hybrid smorgasbord of Eastern religions and amenable philosophies. These quasi-religious groups became known as the New Age movement, a full embrace of the countercultural social revolution of the Sixties.
It epitomized what became known as the Me Generation of the Seventies.
Read More
Related Posts:

The greatest act of love ever displayed in all of human history is found in Jesus Christ. If you are looking for the proof of God’s love for sinners, even for you, then look to Christ. As those who have received Christ’s love, may we crown him with many crowns and devote our lives to living out his command, “Love one another as I have loved you.”

On the night before his crucifixion, Jesus gave a parting command to his disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” But love is not an abstract, sentimental idea. Jesus makes it clear that love is shown most powerfully in the act of self-sacrifice, even to the point of death. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” But Jesus wasn’t only talking about what we must do. He was also pointing to his death for us, the greatest of all acts of love.
Preaching on this text in 1873, Spurgeon gives seven reasons for why Christ’s laying down his life was infinitely greater and more glorious than any act of sacrifice that has ever been performed. For each one of these, Spurgeon calls for crowns of glory and worship to be placed upon Christ’s head.
Crown #1: Jesus was immortal and never needed to die
Christ’s death was utterly unique because it was an entirely voluntary act of love.
When a man lays down his life for his friend, he does not lay down what he could keep altogether; he could only have kept it for a while, even if he had lived as long as mortals can, till grey hairs are on their head, he must at last have yielded to the arrows of death. A substitutionary death for love’s sake in ordinary cases would be but a slightly premature payment of that debt of nature which must be paid by all. But such is not the case with Jesus. Jesus needed not die at all; there was no ground or reason why he should die apart from his laying down his life in the room and place and stead of his friends.
Crown #2: Jesus sacrificed himself knowing he had no chance of escape
Some people may volunteer to die for another and yet may still have hope that they will escape death. This was not the case for Jesus.
He knew that if he was to give a ransom for our souls he had no loophole for escape, he must surely die. Die he or his people must, there was no other alternative. If we were to escape from the pit through him, he must perish in the pit himself; there was no hope for him, there was no way by which the cup could pass from him. Men have risked their lives for their friends bravely; perhaps had they been certain that the risk would have ended in death they would have hesitated; Jesus was certain that our salvation involved death to him, the cup must be drained to the bottom, he must endure the mortal agony, and in all the sufferings of death extreme he must not be spared one jot or little; yet deliberately, for our sakes, he espoused death that he might espouse us.
Crown #3: Jesus’ sacrifice was motivated by pure, unmingled love
One person might die for another out of a sense of duty or gratitude or debt. But Jesus had no such motivation. His death was an act of pure love.
Read More