40 Questions About Biblical Theology by Jason S.
DeRouchie, Oren R. Martin, and Andrew David Naselli is part of Kregel’s “40
Questions” series, of which I have reviewed a few volumes already.
The questions are divided into sections covering “Defining
Biblical Theology” – questions 1-9, “Exploring Method in Biblical Theology” –
questions 10-19, “Illustration Biblical Theology: Tracing Themes” – questions 20-30,
and “Illustrating Biblical Theology: The Use of Earlier Scripture in Later
Scripture” – questions 31-35, and “Applying Biblical Theology” – questions 36-40.
The shorter definition – they give a shorter and longer
definition – of Biblical Theology that they come up with is “Biblical theology
studies how the whole Bible progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Christ”
(20).
In the first section of the book, they look at three ways
to see the Bible as biblical theology: dispensationalism, covenantalism, and
the view they embrace – progressive covenentalism (60). Progressive convenantalism does not
specifically distinguish between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace,
as does covenantalism Rather they see the Bible having one continually
unfolding covenant (60).
They address how each of these three views understand
biblical theology and why they believe their view is the best one (173ff).
If you forget that this series is written by Baptists –
which of course is fine – but be aware certain views will be promoted, in their
critique of convenantalism, they note that believers, not children, should be
baptized (191).
Tin looking at how the Law is to be understood in the New
Testament, they argue for four outcomes:
a law will be transformed, maintained, extended, or annulled (253).
Maintained and annulled are easily understood. By extended – their example is the law
regarding parapet building is extended to the fulness of loving neighbor. And transformed – their example if the
Sabbath – which they argue is no longer required of believers, but now
represents the Sabbath rest in the Kingdom (252-253).
They do not make the distinction between the ceremonial,
judicial, and moral law which is the way I have understood the law and the way
it crossed into the New Testament world.
(But I am a covenantalist!)
Question 26 deals specifically with the Sabbath, and I had
trouble with this chapter: the authors
argue that God said to rest on Saturday (259).
God said to rest on the seventh day – He didn’t name the day, nor do we
know what day the Creation happened – unless Ussher is correct, and then the
Creation happened on a Tuesday.
The place I was very troubled in this question is where
the authors say that the Sabbath is a matter of conscience, Sunday is not the
Christian Sabbath, and it is heretical to treat it as a moral law (my word)
Christian must keep (264).
I have no problem with there being differing views on the
Sabbath. However, I think it is quite a
leap to say a person who believes it is a moral law that Christians ought to
keep is heretical! I hope this language
will be rethought in future editions of this volume.
Each chapter (question) ends with questions for thought
and study. And the book ends with a
Scripture index.
I like this series very much. It is a thought-provoking series which can
well be used by individuals or groups.
The two caveats I give are that they are coming from a Baptist perspective,
and it is alright for Christians to disagree on non-salvific matters.
I recommend this series for personal and group study and
hope to continue to read them and profit from them.
I received this book for free from Kregel in exchange for
an honest review.
[This review appears on my blog, my YouTube channel,
Amazon.com, Kregel.com, and Goodreads.com.]
No comments:
Post a Comment