Class 1: Introduction to Biblical Theology

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.

Psalms 7:11

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 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,

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 9:33

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 27:5

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.

Hebrews 10:1

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.

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.

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,

I don't know,

depending on,

like,

Leviticus comes

after Exodus,

like,

is there meaning there?

I'm not sure.

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.

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.

Yeah.

Yeah.

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.

Boop.

Yeah.

Yeah.

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.

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 trust in the Holy Spirit

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,

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