God's Kingdom through God's Covenants E-Book

Peter J. Gentry

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 579

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

The Bible records a number of covenants that God made with his people. However, rather than merely abstract ideas for theologians and scholars to study, the covenants in Scripture hold the key to understanding the Bible's overarching story and message. In God's Kingdom through God's Covenants, two world-class scholars offer readers an engaging snapshot of how God has chosen to lovingly relate to his people in history, tracing the significance of the concept of "covenant" through both the Old and New Testaments. Explaining the differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism while offering a thoughtful alternative to both, this book ultimately highlights the covenantal framework through which God has promised to remain faithful to his people.

Leseprobe

GOD’S KINGDOM throughGOD’S COVENANTS

A CONCISE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

PETER J. GENTRY AND STEPHEN J. WELLUM

God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology

Copyright © 2015 by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum

Published by Crossway

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law.

Cover design: Studio Gearbox

Cover image: The Tower of Babel, 1563, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria/The Bridgeman Art Library.

First printing 2015

Printed in the United States of America

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are the authors’ translations.

Scripture references marked NIV are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Scripture quotation marked NASB is from TheNew American Standard Bible®. Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

The Scripture reference marked RSV is from TheRevised Standard Version. Copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

The Scripture reference marked NRSV is from TheNew Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the authors.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-4335-4191-9 ePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-4194-0 PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-4192-6 Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-4193-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gentry, Peter John.

Kingdom through covenant : a biblical-theological understanding of the covenants / Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum.

     1 online resource

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.

ISBN 978-1-4335-4192-6 (pdf) – ISBN 978-1-4335-4193-3 (mobi) – ISBN 978-1-4335-4194-0 (epub) – ISBN 978-1-4335-1464-7 (tp)

1. Covenants—Biblical teaching. 2. Covenants—Religious aspects—Christianity. 3. Theology, Doctrinal. I. Wellum, Stephen J., 1964– joint author. II. Title.

BS680.C67G46          2015

231.7'6—dc23            2015004335

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

CONTENTS

IllustrationsPrefacePART ONEINTRODUCTION  1 The Importance of Covenants in Grasping the Bible’s StoryPART TWOEXPOSITION OF THE BIBLICAL COVENANTS  2 Covenants in the Bible and the Ancient Near East  3 The Covenant with Noah  4 The Covenant with Creation in Genesis 1–3  5 The Covenant with Abraham (I)  6 The Covenant with Abraham (II)  7 The Mosaic Covenant—Exodus/Sinai  8 The Mosaic Covenant—Deuteronomy/Moab  9 The Davidic Covenant10 The New CovenantPART THREETHEOLOGICAL INTEGRATION11 “Kingdom through Covenant”: A Biblical-Theological SummaryGeneral IndexScripture Index

ILLUSTRATIONS

Table  2.1 The Major Covenants

Table  2.2 Comparison and Contrast between Covenant and Contract

Table  3.1 Comparison of Covenant with Noah and Covenant with Creation

Fig.    6.1 Travel Routes of the Ancient Near East

Table  7.1 The First Two of the Ten Words as an Exposition of the Covenant Formula

Table  7.2 Literary Context of the Law in the Pentateuch and Ancient Near East

Table  8.1 Deuteronomy as Suzerain-Vassal Treaty

Table  8.2 Covenant Relationship Formula (CRF) in the Literary Sections of Deuteronomy

Fig.    8.1 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms

Fig.    8.2 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Laws/Treaties and Deuteronomy

Fig.  11.1 Old Testament

Fig.  11.2 New Testament

Fig.  11.3 Time versus Scope of Covenant Membership

Fig.  11.4 Time versus Covenant Partners/Roles

PREFACE

One of the dangers of writing a long and detailed book on the biblical covenants is that it becomes potentially inaccessible to those who are looking for a more succinct treatment of the subject. When we coauthored Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012), it was our intent to write an in-depth treatment of the interrelationship of the biblical covenants. Given our conviction that the progressive unfolding of the biblical covenants is the backbone to the metanarrative of Scripture and, more importantly, that one cannot properly understand God’s glorious redemptive plan apart from thinking through the biblical covenants, it was necessary to discuss the biblical covenants in detail.

In addition, it was our goal to demonstrate that our understanding of kingdom through covenant was slightly different from other ways of thinking through the Bible’s storyline current in evangelical theology. In evangelicalism, the dominant biblical-theological systems of covenant theology and dispensationalism (and their varieties) are the way that most Christians conceive of the Bible’s larger story. It was our conviction that both of these views—as much as we agree with them on most matters related to the gospel—were not quite right in their specific way of rendering the Bible’s plotline. Hence, it was necessary for our book to interact with technical details in exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology.

We offer this shortened version of the earlier book for readers who are more interested in a succinct treatment of the subject, who want to be able to see our proposal of “kingdom through covenant” without all of the technical discussion and theological debate. In fact, it was the prodding of many seminary students, pastors, and lay leaders who desired a shorter, more accessible version of our larger work that was the genesis of this book. In this work, we have done our best to summarize our basic proposal, to avoid a lot of the technical discussion and debate, and to simply outline how we understand the unfolding of the biblical covenants and thus, how our triune God’s plan has been brought to its wonderful consummation in Christ.

As in the first book, we begin by discussing why the covenants are foundational to the biblical storyline, along with some interpretative observations on how to read Scripture correctly. We then unpack each covenant in its own context before we show the progressive development of how each covenant builds on the previous one and then how all the covenants find their telos, terminus, and fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ. The last chapter summarizes our findings by succinctly describing exactly what we mean by the expression “kingdom through covenant.” To make this work more accessible, we have kept the footnotes to a minimum, have mostly eliminated the discussions of how our view differs from that of dispensational and covenant theology, and have not given a detailed defense of our view. For the most part, the view argued in the previous book is assumed, yet now written in such a way that the reader is able more easily to discern what that overall view is and how the biblical covenants serve as the Bible’s own way of unfolding, revealing, and disclosing God’s one, eternal plan of redemption. If the reader desires the warrant and bibliographic discussion for the overall argument of this work, all he needs to do is turn to the previous work and find it there.

We have read with great care and interest every review of Kingdom through Covenant known to us. Frequently, the reviews have told us more about the metanarrative of our reviewers than the evidence presented in the book. Only rarely have reviewers actually engaged the extensive exegesis. We would like to thank Doug Moo for pointing out problems in my (Peter’s) treatment of Ezekiel 16 and the relation of Deuteronomy to the Sinai Covenant. We believe we are developing in our own understanding of the Scriptures and appreciate correction. Further research has resulted in new proposals, which are incorporated into this abridgement.

A number of people have asked about the artwork used for the covers of both the larger work and this abridgement. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, a Flemish Renaissance painter, produced three versions of The Tower of Babel; only two of them survive. The painting chosen for the larger work, Kingdom through Covenant, was done in 1565 and is in the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, in Rotterdam. The painting chosen for this abridgement was done in 1563 and resides in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. The Tower of Babel is not only an interpretation of the biblical text but a commentary on the construction going on in Antwerp at the time. These pictures portray an attempt to establish the human kingdom through unified effort. The result is laughable. The Devil offered Jesus all the broken, tattered kingdoms of this world, but the only kingdom that will stand is the one now laughed at by men: the kingdom of God.

There are many people to thank in seeing this book come to fruition. We especially want to thank Crossway for their ongoing support of our work, and especially Justin Taylor for his encouragement and confidence in us. We also want to thank the administration and our colleagues at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where we both teach and serve. It is a privilege to serve alongside colleagues who love the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and an administration who encourages us to teach, write, and minister as servants of the King of kings. In addition, Peter wants to dedicate this work to his dearest wife, Barb, who for more than thirty-five years has not only been a lover and sweetheart but has served as a close teammate in ministry and has epitomized ḥesed and ’ěmet in covenant relationship. Stephen gladly dedicates this work to his dearest wife, Karen, who for almost thirty years has served alongside him as a wonderful and faithful wife, mother, and partner in gospel ministry. Without the loving care and devotion of our wives, we would not have been able to write this work or do anything we have done in our marriage, in our family, and in the Christian ministry.

It is our prayer that this shortened work, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants, will be an encouragement to the church by helping Christians know a bit better the “whole counsel of God” as given through the unfolding and progression of the biblical covenants. It is our prayer that this work will help us think through how our great and glorious triune God has acted to redeem us in Christ, and thus has led us to a greater adoration and knowledge of, love for, and obedience to our covenant Lord. To God be all the glory in his church and in the world, until we sit at Jesus’ feet, lost in wonder, love, and praise.

Written, this time, above the clouds.

Peter J. Gentry

Stephen J. Wellum

November 2014

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

THE IMPORTANCE OF COVENANTS IN GRASPING THE BIBLE’S STORY

The idea of covenant is fundamental to the Bible’s story. At its most basic, covenant presents God’s desire to enter into relationship with men and women created in his image. This is reflected in the repeated covenant refrain, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Exodus 6:6–8; Leviticus 26:12 etc.). Covenant is all about relationship between the Creator and his creation. The idea may seem simple; however, the implications of covenant and covenant relationship between God and humankind are vast . . .1

The purpose of this book is to demonstrate how central and foundational “covenants” are to the entire narrative plot structure of the Bible. One cannot fully understand Scripture and correctly draw theological conclusions from it without grasping how all of the biblical covenants unfold across time and find their telos, terminus, and fulfillment in Christ. We do not assert that the covenants are the central theme of Scripture. Instead, we assert that the covenants form the backbone of the Bible’s metanarrative and thus it is essential to “put them together” correctly in order to discern accurately the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Michael Horton nicely captures this point when he writes that the biblical covenants are “the architectural structure that we believe the Scriptures themselves to yield. . . . It is not simply the concept of the covenant, but the concrete existence of God’s covenantal dealings in our history that provides the context within which we recognize the unity of Scripture amid its remarkable variety.”2 If this is so, which we contend it is, then apart from properly understanding the nature of the biblical covenants and how they relate to each other, we will not correctly discern the message of the Bible and hence God’s self-disclosure which centers on and culminates in Christ.

This is not a new insight, especially for those in the Reformed tradition who have written extensively about the importance of covenants and have structured their entire theology around the concept of covenant. Yet it is not only Reformed theology that acknowledges this point; almost every variety of Christian theology admits that the biblical covenants establish a central framework that holds the Bible’s story together. Since the coming of Christ, Christians have wrestled with the relationships between the covenants, especially the old and new covenants. In fact, it is almost impossible to understand many of the early church’s struggles apart from covenantal debates. For example, think of the many issues concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship in the New Testament (Matt. 22:1–14, par.; Acts 10–11; Romans 9–11; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:1–13); the claim of the Judaizers, which centers on covenantal debates (Galatians 2–3); the reason that the Jerusalem Council assembled (Acts 15); the divisions between strong and weak in the church (Romans 14–15); and the question of how to live in relation to the old covenant now that Christ has come (Matthew 5–7; 15:1–20, par.; Acts 7; Romans 4; Hebrews 7–10). All of these issues are simply the church wrestling with covenantal shifts—from old covenant to new—and the nature of covenant fulfillment in Christ.

Christians have differed in their understanding of the relationship between the covenants. This is one of the primary reasons that we have different theological systems, which is best exemplified today by the theologies of dispensationalism and by covenant theology. Even though these two views agree on the main issues central to the gospel, at the heart of these two systems there is disagreement on what the biblical covenants are and how they relate one to another. Thus, beyond our basic agreement that the story of Scripture moves from Adam to Abraham to Sinai, ultimately issuing in a promise of a new covenant whose advent is tied with Jesus’ cross work (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26), there is disagreement on how the covenants are related. This disagreement inevitably spills over to other issues, especially the question of what applies to us today as new covenant believers. It is at this point, on such matters as the Sabbath, the application of the Old Testament law to our lives, the relationship between Israel and the church, and many more issues, that we discover significant differences among Christians.

For this reason, correctly “putting together” the biblical covenants is central to grasping the Bible’s story, drawing correct theological conclusions, and rightly applying Scripture to our daily lives. If we are going to make progress in resolving disagreements within the church, then how we put together the biblical covenants must be faced head-on and not simply assumed. We are convinced that the current ways of putting together the covenants, especially as represented by covenant or dispensational theology, are not quite right, even though it is important not to overplay the differences among us. All Christians seek to do justice to the overall unity of God’s plan, and to acknowledge some kind of “progressive revelation,” redemptive epochs (or “dispensations”), fulfillment in Christ, change in God’s plan across time, and so on. Yet there is disagreement in regard to the specifics of God’s plan, the kind of changes that result, and the relationship between Israel and the church, which still requires resolution. What follows is an alternative reading of the covenants, which seeks to build on the insights of both of these theological systems while offering a slightly different way of understanding the unfolding of the covenants and their fulfillment in Christ.

“Kingdom through covenant” or “progressive covenantalism” is our proposal for what is central to the Bible’s storyline. Progressive underscores the unfolding of God’s plan from old to new, while covenantalism stresses that God’s unified plan unfolds through the covenants, ultimately terminating and culminating in Jesus and the new covenant. Our triune God has only one plan of redemption, yet we discover what that plan is as we trace his salvation work through the biblical covenants. Each and every biblical covenant contributes to that one plan, but in order to grasp the full depth and breadth of that plan, we must understand each covenant in its own redemptive-historical context by locating that covenant in relation to what precedes it and what follows it. When we do this, not only do we unpack God’s glorious plan; we also discover how that plan is fulfilled in our majestic Redeemer (see Heb. 1:1–3; 7:1–10:18; cf. Eph. 1:9–10). In addition, given that Christians live in light of the achievement of Christ’s glorious work, we can apply Scripture rightly to our lives only if we think through how all of the previous covenants find their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant he inaugurates.

Before we unpack “kingdom through covenant,” in the remainder of this chapter and in preparation for chapters 2–10 we will focus on two issues. First, we will briefly discuss how we conceive of the nature of biblical theology and its relation to systematic theology, since this book is an exercise in both disciplines and, sadly, there is no unanimous agreement in regard to these disciplines. Second, we will outline our hermeneutical approach in this study and thus describe something of our theological method. Let us now briefly turn to each of these areas.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND ITS RELATION TO SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Any attempt to understand the progressive nature of the biblical covenants is an exercise in “biblical theology.” It is also the first step in drawing legitimate theological conclusions from Scripture and thus applying the “whole counsel of God” to our lives, which is the task of “systematic theology.” Since people mean different things by “biblical” and “systematic” theology, let us explain how we are using these terms and how we understand the relationship between them.

At the popular level, for most Christians, when the term “biblical theology” is used it is understood as expressing the desire to be “true to the Bible” in our teaching and theology. Obviously, to be “biblical” in this sense is what all Christians ought to desire and strive for, but this is not exactly how we are using the term. In fact, in church history, “biblical theology” has been understood in a number of ways.3

Generally speaking, before the past few centuries biblical theology was often identified with systematic theology, even though many in church history practiced what we currently call “biblical theology,” that is, an attempt to grasp the redemptive-historical unfolding of Scripture.4 One can think of many examples, such as Irenaeus (c. 115–c. 202), John Calvin (1509–1564), and Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). In this sense, biblical theology is not entirely new, since the church has always wrestled with how to “put together” Scripture, especially in light of Christ. Any position, then, that seeks to think through the Canon is doing “biblical theology” in some sense. Granting this point, it is still accurate to note that, in the past, there was a tendency to treat Scripture in more logical and atemporal categories rather than to think carefully through the Bible’s developing storyline. Even in the post-Reformation era, where there was a renewed emphasis on doing a “whole-Bible theology,” biblical theology was mostly identified with systematic theology, and systematics was identified more with “dogmatic” concerns.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, however, biblical theology began to emerge as a distinct discipline. But it is crucial to distinguish the emergence of biblical theology in the Enlightenment along two different paths—one, an illegitimate path tied to Enlightenment presuppositions, and the other, a legitimate one that developed previous insights in church history but now in a more precise, detailed, and historically conscious manner, dependent upon the Bible’s own internal presentation.

In regard to the illegitimate Enlightenment approach to biblical theology, there was a growing tendency to read Scripture critically and uncoupled from historic Christian theology. This resulted in approaching Scripture “as any other book,” rooted in history but also open to historical-critical methods which viewed the Bible within the confines of methodological naturalism.5 This meant that the Bible was not approached on its own terms, i.e., as God’s Word written. Instead, the idea that Scripture is God-breathed through human authors—a text that authoritatively and accurately unfolds God’s redemptive plan centered in Christ—was rejected. The end result of this approach was not only a denial of a high view of Scripture but also an increasingly fragmented reading of Scripture, given the fact that the practitioners of this view did not believe Scripture to be a unified, God-given revelation. Biblical theology as a discipline became merely “descriptive,” governed by critical methods and non-Christian worldview assumptions. “Diversity” was emphasized more than “unity” in Scripture, and ultimately, as a discipline seeking to grasp God’s unified plan, it failed. In the twentieth century, there were some attempts to overcome the Enlightenment straitjacket on Scripture, but none of these attempts produced a “whole Bible theology,” given their low view of Scripture.

Contrary to the Enlightenment approach, there is a legitimate way to do biblical theology. In the history of the church, specifically in the post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era, this path also emphasized a renewed attempt to root the Bible in history by stressing the “literal sense” (sensus literalis) tied to the intention(s) of the divine and human author(s). Yet, it was rooted in a larger Christian worldview and, as such, it operated self-consciously within Christian theological presuppositions, as illustrated in such people as Johannes Cocceius and the post-Reformation Reformed Protestant scholastics who came after him.6 Probably the best-known twentieth-century pioneer of biblical theology, who sought to follow a path distinct from that of the Enlightenment, was Geerhardus Vos, who developed biblical theology at Princeton Seminary in the early twentieth cen­tury.7 Vos, who was birthed out of Dutch Calvinism, along with such figures as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, sought to do biblical theology with a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture. Vos defined biblical theology as “that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.”8 In contrast to the Enlightenment view, Vos argued that biblical theology, as an exegetical discipline, not only begins with the biblical text; it must also embrace Scripture as God’s own self-attesting Word, fully authoritative and reliable. Furthermore, Vos argued, in exegeting Scripture, biblical theology seeks to trace out the Bible’s unity and diversity and find its consummation in Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant era. Biblical theology must follow a method that reads the Bible on its own terms, following the Bible’s own internal contours and shape, in order to discover God’s unified plan as it is disclosed to us over time. The path that Vos blazed was foundational for much of the resurgence of biblical theology within evangelicalism, in the twentieth and now twenty-first century.

Following this evangelical view, we define “biblical theology” by employing Brian Rosner’s helpful definition: “Biblical theology” is “theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyze and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.”9 In this definition, Rosner emphasizes some important points crucial to the nature and task of biblical theology. Biblical theology is concerned with the overall message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole. As an exegetical method, it is sensitive to the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Scripture, as well as to the interrelationships between earlier and later texts in Scripture. Furthermore, biblical theology is interested not merely in words and word studies but also in concepts and themes as it traces out the Bible’s own storyline, on the Bible’s own terms, as the plotline reaches its culmination in Christ. In a similar way, D. A. Carson speaks of biblical theology as an inductive, exegetical discipline which works from biblical texts, in all of their literary diversity, to the entire Canon—hence the notion of intertextuality. In making connections between texts, biblical theology also attempts to let the biblical text set the agenda. This is what we mean by saying that we are to read Scripture on its own terms, i.e., intratextually. Scripture is to be interpreted in light of its own categories and presentation, since Scripture comes to us as divinely given, coherent, and unified.10 In fact, it is our contention that if one asks the most basic questions—How has God given Scripture to us? What are the Bible’s own internal structures? How ought those structures shape our doing of biblical theology?—working through the biblical covenants is the Bible’s own way of presenting its internal structures and learning how to read Scripture as God intended it to be read.

With these ideas in mind, let us now summarize what we believe biblical theology is. Simply stated, it is the hermeneutical discipline that seeks to do justice to what Scripture claims to be and what it actually is. In regard to its claim, Scripture claims to be God’s Word written, and as such, it is a unified revelation of his gracious plan of redemption. In regard to what Scripture actually is, it is a progressive unfolding of God’s plan, rooted in history and developed along a specific storyline primarily demarcated by the biblical covenants. Biblical theology as a hermeneutical discipline attempts to exegete texts in their own context and then, in light of the entire Canon, to examine the unfolding nature of God’s plan and carefully think through the relationship between before and after in that plan, which culminates in Christ.11 In so doing, biblical theology provides the basis for understanding how texts in one part of the Bible relate to all other texts, according to God’s intention, which is discovered through human authors but ultimately at the canonical level. In the end, biblical theology is the attempt to think through the “whole counsel of God,” and it provides the basis and underpinning for all theologizing.

If this is what biblical theology is, then what is systematic theology? As with “biblical theology,” there are various ideas as to what “systematic theology” is. It is not necessary to delve into all of these diverse views; rather, we will simply state how we conceive of the discipline. For our purposes, we will employ the definition given by John Frame: systematic theology is “the application of God’s Word by persons to all areas of life.”12 In our view, this entails at least two key components.

First, in order to apply Scripture properly, we must first interpret Scripture correctly, which requires the doing of biblical theology, as just described. This is why we contend that biblical theology is the basis for all theologizing, since we are not doing theology unless we correctly understand how the entire canon of Scripture fits together.

Second, systematic theology goes further than biblical theology, since it involves the application of Scripture to all areas of life. Systematic theology, then, inevitably involves theological construction and doctrinal formulation, grounded in biblical theology and done in light of historical theology, but it also involves interacting with all areas of life—history, science, psychology, ethics, and so on. In so doing, systematic theology leads to worldview formation as we seek to set the biblical-theological framework of Scripture over against all other worldviews and learn “to think God’s thoughts after him,” even in areas that the Bible does not directly address. In this important way, systematic theology presents a well-thought-out worldview, over against all of its competitors, as it seeks to apply biblical truth to every domain of life. As a discipline it is also critical in seeking to evaluate ideas within and outside the church. Outside the church, systematic theology takes on an apologetic function as it first sets forth the faith to be believed and defended, and then critiques and evaluates views that reject the truth of God’s Word. In this way, apologetics is properly a subset of systematic theology. Within the church, theology is critical by analyzing theological proposals first in terms of their fit with Scripture and secondly in terms of their implications for other doctrines. In all these ways, systematic theology is the discipline that attempts “to bring our entire thought captive to Christ” (see 2 Cor. 10:1–5), for our good as the church and ultimately for God’s glory.

How, then, should we think of the relationship between biblical and systematic theology? In our view, biblical theology is primarily a hermeneutical discipline, since it seeks to rightly divide God’s Word (2 Tim. 2:14–15). This is why the conclusions of systematic theology must first be grounded in the exegetical conclusions of biblical theology. But then systematic theology goes further: on the basis of biblical theology it attempts to construct what we ought to believe from Scripture for today, to critique other theological proposals within the church, and also the false ideas of non-Christian worldviews, so that we learn anew to live under the Lordship of Christ.

How does this discussion apply to what we are doing in this book? In this book we are setting forth a proposal for understanding the nature and interrelationships of the biblical covenants. In truth, we are doing systematic theology by first grounding it in biblical theology. In order to make our case, we will expound the biblical covenants before we turn to systematic reflection. But before we do this, let us outline the basic hermeneutical approach we will follow.

HERMENEUTICAL BASICS: BEING “BIBLICAL” IN OUR READING OF SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY

What does it mean to be “biblical”? How do we rightly exegete biblical texts and draw proper theological conclusions from them? At the heart of Christian theology is the attempt to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5, ESV). But how does one know that one’s theological proposals are biblically warranted? Obviously these questions are not new; they have been with us since Scripture was first given and interpreted. And, it must be admitted, these questions are not as easy and straightforward to answer as many assume. We have all experienced diversity of opinion within the church, even among those of us who affirm Scripture’s full authority. This has apparently led some to treat the Bible like a wax nose, i.e., twisting and shaping it at will to fit a variety of viewpoints, with the conclusion that it is not possible to demonstrate one interpretation as more biblical than another.

How, then, do we approach Scripture, interpret it, and draw our theological conclusions? In theological debates, adjudication between viewpoints is often complicated. As most admit, theological positions involve more than merely appealing to one or two texts; entire positions involve a discussion of how texts are understood in their context, how those texts are interrelated to other texts, and ultimately how the entire canon of Scripture is put together. Before we develop our proposal, “kingdom through covenant,” we will first outline our basic hermeneutical commitments. Obviously, in this regard, much could be said; we can only scratch the surface. In addition, most of what follows is in agreement with a majority of approaches to evangelical hermeneutics, but regardless, it is important to describe how we approach the task of reading and applying Scripture and thus how we move from text to theological conclusions.

Let us describe our hermeneutical approach by developing the following statement: In order to be biblical in our theology, our interpretation and application of Scripture must (1) take seriously what Scripture claims to be; and (2) interpret Scripture in light of what it actually is as God’s unfolding revelation across time. Let us develop these two points a bit more.

The Scriptural Claim for Itself: Scripture’s Self-Attestation

In order to be biblical in our theology we must take seriously what Scripture claims to be. What, then, does Scripture claim for itself? We cannot give a full-blown explication and defense of the doctrine of Scripture; many books have undertaken that task and have done it well.13 In agreement with historic Christianity, we affirm that Scripture is God’s Word written, the product of God’s mighty action through the Word and by the Holy Spirit whereby human authors freely wrote exactly what God intended to be written and without error.

Why has the church throughout the ages affirmed this about Scripture? The answer is straightforward: Scripture makes this claim about itself. The church does not confer authority upon this book because she desires it to be God’s Word; rather, Scripture itself testifies that it is God’s authoritative Word, written through the agency of human authors, and that it is the product of the sovereign-personal “God who is there” and from “the God who is not silent.”14 As such, Scripture both attests to and bears the marks of its divine origin and is thus completely authoritative, sufficient, and reliable. Certainly some biblical scholars and theologians have challenged this claim, but when Scripture is read on its own terms, it can be shown repeatedly to make this claim. In what follows, we assume this view of Scripture in our interpretation of it.

How, then, does this view of Scripture impact our interpretation of it? Two answers may be given. First, given that Scripture is God’s Word, from the triune, sovereign, and all-knowing God of the universe, we expect an overall unity and coherence between the Testaments, despite its diversity, that together declares God’s unfailing plan and purposes in this fallen world. As we think through the biblical covenants, given our view of Scripture, we will not view the covenants as independent and isolated from each other but as together, in all of their diversity, unfolding the one plan of God centered in our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:9–10).

Second, given that Scripture is God’s Word through human authors, we discover God’s intent by reading what the biblical authors say; hence the expression, what God says, Scripture says (i.e., the biblical authors), and vice versa. Ultimately, this point leads us to a canonical reading of Scripture in order to discover how to interpret the meaning of specific texts. It is not enough to read Scripture in a “thin” manner, i.e., as isolated texts apart from the whole. Instead we must read texts in a “thick” way, i.e., texts read in light of the entire canon of Scripture.15 We discover God’s intent through the writing(s) of the biblical authors, but given the diversity of authors throughout time, we must interpret biblical authors in light of the entire Canon. It is only by reading Scripture “thickly” that we discover the true meaning of Scripture, i.e., what God’s intent is, and how Scripture applies to us today. This observation is simply another way of stating the important Reformation principle that “Scripture must interpret Scripture.”

It is also another way of speaking about the “fuller meaning” of Scripture or what has been labeled sensus plenior. This expression is understood in diverse ways, so it requires careful definition. We agree with Greg Beale’s understanding of the term when he argues that, for example, “the Old Testament authors did not exhaustively understand the meaning, implications, and possible applications of all that they wrote.”16 As authors who wrote under divine inspiration, what they wrote was God-given, true, and authoritative. However, they might not, and probably did not, understand where the entire revelation was going, given the fact that God had not yet disclosed all of the details of his eternal plan. Thus, as more revelation is given through later authors, we discover more of God’s plan and where that plan is going. It is for this reason that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament becomes definitive, since later texts bring with them greater clarity and understanding. In other words, we must carefully allow the New Testament to show us how the Old Testament is brought to fulfillment in Christ. In this way, as Beale rightly acknowledges, the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old may expand the Old Testament author’s meaning in the sense of seeing new implications and applications. However, given that we discover God’s intent through the human authors, later texts do not contravene the integrity of the earlier texts, “but rather [develop] them in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament author’s understanding of the way in which God interacts with his people”17 in previous eras of redemptive-history.18 Thus, Scripture as an entire canon must interpret Scripture; the later parts must “draw out and explain more clearly the earlier parts,”19 and theological conclusions must be exegetically derived from the entire Canon.

On this point, it is also important to stress that, given what Scripture is, a canonical reading is not an optional way to interpret Scripture. In fact, to read the Bible canonically is demanded by the very nature of Scripture and its claim regarding itself. Thus, not to read Scripture in this way is to fail to interpret it correctly and is to be less than “biblical.” Grammatical-historical exegesis, then, needs to be set in the larger context of a canonical reading; the parts must be read in terms of the whole. Let us now turn to the second point, i.e., in order to be “biblical” we must interpret Scripture in light of what it actually is as God’s unfolding revelation across time.

Interpreting Scripture According to What It Is

What is Scripture? Here we are not thinking in terms of what Scripture says about itself but more in terms of the actual phenomena of Scripture, or better, how God has chosen to give us his Word and disclose himself to us through human authors. Let us discuss the phenomena of the Bible by focusing on two points: Scripture is a word-act revelation and a progressive revelation.

SCRIPTURE IS A WORD-ACT REVELATION

A helpful way of describing the phenomena of Scripture is by viewing it as a word-act revelation. What does this mean? Simply stated, it means that Scripture is God’s own authoritative interpretation of his redemptive acts through the agency of human authors. Let us think about this in three steps.

First, we affirm that all of God’s redemptive acts are revelatory of him, his plan, and his purposes. God has disclosed himself in history through his mighty acts, what we often identify as special revelation in contrast to God’s revelation in the natural world. For example, in the Old Testament, the greatest revelatory redemptive act of God was his deliverance of Israel from their slavery in Egypt (cf. Ex. 6:6–7). In the New Testament, the proclamation of the gospel involves the recitation of God’s acts in history (cf. Acts 2:22ff.; 3:13ff.; 10:36ff.; 13:26ff.; 1 Cor. 15:3f.). In fact, supremely, the focal point of Scripture is what God has done in Christ. The New Testament continually proclaims that what God had promised in ages past, what the Old Testament prophets anticipated, God has now brought to fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus—the greatest display of God’s mighty acts (cf. Mark 1:15; Luke 4:21; Gal. 4:4).

Second, as important as it is to affirm that God acts in order to reveal himself and to redeem his people, God’s redemptive acts are never left to speak for themselves, and they never appear separated from God’s verbal communications of truth. Word and act always accompany each other. Furthermore, just as redemption is historically successive, so also is revelation, for God’s revelatory word interprets God’s redemptive acts. For example, Exodus 15:1–18 interprets the events of the Red Sea crossing; they are never left as self-interpreting. In fact, word and act often follow a general order in Scripture: first there is a preparatory word, then the divine act, followed by the interpretive word. For example, in the giving of the old covenant we first see a preparatory word (Exodus 19), then the divine act of giving the law (Exodus 20), followed up by an interpretative explanation of the law (Exodus 21ff.). This same order may be observed of the Bible as a whole. The Old Testament reveals the predictive word and anticipates greater realities tied to the coming of our Lord; the Gospels give the account of the redemptive-revelatory fact of the coming of the Son; and the remainder of the New Testament supplies, along with the Gospels, the final interpretation of not only who the Son is but the full implications of what he has achieved in the inauguration of the new covenant era and the fulfillment of the prophetic word.

Third, as a word-act revelation, Scripture is the product of God’s own mighty actions. Scripture not only chronicles the activities of God’s redemption in history; it not only is a word that interprets God’s redeeming acts; it is itself a product of God’s own redemptive acts for the purpose of teaching, edification, instruction, and as such is fully authoritative and sufficient for our thinking and lives. Scripture, then, as a written text, is in its final form God’s own divine interpretation, through human authors, of his own redemptive acts that carries with it a true and authoritative interpretation of his redemptive plan. Though it is not an exhaustive revelation, nonetheless it is a true, objective, and first-order text that requires us to read it as a complete canonical text on its own terms, according to its own structure and categories, in order to discern correctly God’s intent and redemptive plan. Once again, this reminds us that Scripture must be read as an entire revelation in order to discern God’s overall plan. This point is further underscored by viewing Scripture as a progressive revelation.

SCRIPTURE IS A PROGRESSIVE REVELATION

Scripture as a word-act revelation also involves historical progression, since, just as God’s plan of redemption and mighty acts did not happen all at once, so the word-interpretation of those acts unfolds over time.20 Revelation, alongside redemption, unfolds in a progressive manner by unique twists and turns in separate but related epochs, largely demarcated by the biblical covenants, which ultimately find their terminus in the person and work of Christ.

Hebrews 1:1–3 beautifully describes this point. “Long ago,” the author reminds us, “God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,” and he did so “at many times and in many ways” (ESV). God’s word-act revelation took place over a period of time, and as it was given it pointed beyond itself to something more to come. In fact, this is the precise point that the author makes by his use of “at many times and in many ways,” i.e., not only was the Old Testament revelation repetitive, it was also incomplete. In the progress of revelation, more and more of God’s plan was disclosed to us, pointing forward to and culminating in the coming of Christ. But now, with the coming of the Son, the last days have dawned; the last days that the Old Testament revelation anticipated have now come to fulfillment literally “in Son” (en huiō; v. 2), underscoring that in Christ the final, definitive, complete revelation has now come. In this way, the author of Hebrews, along with the entire New Testament, places the Son in a qualitatively different category than the prophets who preceded him. The effect of this is not to downplay the authority of the Old Testament prophetic revelation; rather, the point is that the previous revelation was incomplete and, by its very nature, was intended by God to point beyond itself to God’s full self-disclosure in his Son. This is why the Son is more than a mere prophet (though he is the fulfillment of the prophetic institution): he is the one about whom the prophets spoke; he is the one who fulfills the previous incomplete Word. Even more: in the Son, all of God’s revelation and redemptive purposes culminate.

All of this is to say that Scripture as a word-act revelation is also a progressive revelation. Hermeneutically speaking, this has important implications for how we read and apply Scripture and thus draw conclusions from Scripture and warrant our theological proposals. Our reading of Scripture must trace out how Scripture unfolds God’s plan of redemption, which is the task of “biblical theology.” Biblical theology attempts to give a theological reading of Scripture, grounded in exegesis, that grasps “the whole counsel of God” in terms of its redemptive-historical progression. Scripture consists of many literary forms which all must be interpreted carefully, but underneath all of these literary forms is a storyline, beginning in creation and moving to the new creation, which unfolds God’s redemptive plan. And it is crucial that we read Scripture in such a way that we do justice to the Bible’s own presentation and within its own categories, which is precisely why the biblical covenants are so important.

Michael Horton stresses these exact points as he thinks through theological method.21 Given what Scripture is, Horton contends that the most “biblical” theological method is one that is “redemptive-historical-eschatological.” By these terms he is saying what we have just described. Given the authority of Scripture and how it has come to us, we are to interpret Scripture according to its own intrasystematic categories, i.e., on its own terms, which Horton contends are captured by the terms “eschatological” and “redemptive-historical.”

By “eschatological” Horton means more than a mere doctrinal topic. Rather, it is a lens by which we read Scripture and do our theology. Scripture itself comes to us as a redemptive revelation, rooted in history, unfolding God’s eternal plan worked out in time, and as such the very “form” and “shape” of Scripture is eschatological. Scripture is more than a storehouse of facts or propositions; Scripture unfolds for us a plot, a divine interpretation of the drama of redemption, that is eschatological at heart and Christological in focus, and as such, our reading of Scripture and our drawing of theological conclusions must reflect this. By “redemptive-historical,” Horton is referring to Scripture’s own presentation of itself as “the organic unfolding of the divine plan in its execution through word (announcement), act (accomplishment), and word (interpretation).”22 Given that redemption is progressive and unfolding, so is revelation, as it is God’s own interpretation of his action and human response in actual historical contexts.

Given this understanding, for Horton there are a number of important implications for our interpretation of Scripture and for the doing of theology. We will focus on one of them. Our reading of Scripture and our doing of theology must attend to the historical unfolding of redemptive history that is organically related and ultimately centered on Jesus Christ. The very “form” and “shape” of Scripture reminds us that God did not disclose himself in one exhaustive act but in an organic, progressive manner, and in fact, it is this organic quality of revelation that serves to explain the diversity of Scripture. Theology, as a result, must be very careful not to proof-text without considering the redemptive-historical structure and progression in Scripture and reading Scripture as a canonical text.23

“Putting Together” the Canon: The Three Horizons of Biblical Interpretation

What does this discussion have to do with biblical covenants? The simple answer is, everything. As we think through the biblical covenants, since God has not disclosed himself in one exhaustive act but progressively, we must carefully think through every covenant first in its own immediate context, then ask what has preceded that covenant, and then relate that particular covenant to that which comes after it and how it is fulfilled in Christ’s new covenant. It is only when we do this that we begin to understand how each covenant relates to previous and later covenants, and how all the biblical covenants relate to Christ. We must also be careful as we trace out the historical unfolding of God’s plan as demarcated by the biblical covenants and their covenant heads—Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and then our Lord—noting how the entire plan is organically related while at the same time preserving its diversity, thus maintaining a proper balance between the continuity and discontinuity of God’s plan as it culminates in Jesus.

In this regard, the work of Richard Lints is helpful. Lints, in laying out an evangelical theological method, stresses the same points we have stressed, especially in regard to how we must interpret any text of Scripture. He rightly contends that biblical theology is foundational to the doing of systematic theology. He also proposes, given what Scripture is, that we interpret biblical texts according to three horizons: textual, epochal, and canonical.24 By emphasizing these three horizons, Lints helps us think about how to interpret Scripture properly—in light of what Scripture is—while also enabling us to avoid “proof-texting.” He also reminds us that, in biblical interpretation and theological formulation, “context” is king and, in fact, three contexts are crucial in “putting together” the entire Bible, including the biblical covenants. Let us briefly discuss each of these “contexts” for a proper biblical-theological interpretation of Scripture.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

Our interpretation of Scripture begins with a specific text, what Lints calls the textual horizon or the immediate context. In terms of this context, biblical hermeneutics has sought to interpret texts according to the grammatical-historical method, seeking to discern God’s intent through the human author’s intent by putting the text in its historical setting, understanding the rules of language the author is using, analyzing the syntax, textual variants, word meanings, figures of speech, and the literary structure, including the genre of the text. By paying careful attention to the text, a reader discovers what authors are seeking to communicate. Standard books in hermeneutics work through these areas, and we assume all of this in our exegesis of individual passages of Scripture. Yet it is important to note that our interpretation of texts does not terminate here, which leads to the second horizon of biblical interpretation.

The epochal horizon is the second context by which we interpret texts. Here we seek to read texts in light of where they are located in God’s unfolding plan. Since Scripture is a progressive revelation, texts do not come to us in a vacuum; rather, they are embedded in a larger context of what has come before them. As God communicates through biblical authors, these same authors write in light of what has preceded them. When Lints labels this context the “epochal horizon,” he does not intend to convey, nor do we, that the “epochs” embody different plans of God; rather, they simply remind us that God’s revelation of redemption occurs over time. There is a unity within this development, given that it is God’s plan, but this fundamental unity should not lead us to minimize the differences among epochs, hence the balance between continuity and discontinuity in Scripture.

Furthermore, locating texts in redemptive-history also helps illuminate intertextual links between earlier and later revelation. As later authors refer to earlier texts, they build upon what is given, but not only in terms of greater understanding of where God’s plan is going: they also begin to identify God-given patterns between earlier and later events, persons, and institutions within the unfolding of God’s plan—what is rightly labeled “typology.” It is by this means, but not limited to it, that God’s plan moves forward and ultimately reaches its telos in Christ. As later authors draw out these God-given patterns (types), they do not arbitrarily make connections; rather, they develop these patterns in ways that God intends and in ways that do not contravene earlier texts. It is only by reading texts first in their immediate context and then in relation to where these texts are in God’s unfolding plan that we begin to grasp God’s overall plan and purposes. Individual texts do not become fragmented, and the road from “text” to “reader” is not merely a matter of one’s intuition, preference, or prejudice.

Is it necessary to be precise as to what the epochal differences are in Scripture? Probably not; people may disagree on these differences. The important point is to always read texts in light of what has preceded them in reference to God’s redemptive actions and plan. Most agree that the most significant epochal division is between the Old Testament era and the fulfillment of God’s plan in the coming of Christ. But there are also other divisions that are crucial, and Scripture does divide up redemptive-history in a number of ways. For example, in Romans 5:12–21 Paul divides all of human history under two heads: Adam and Christ. Under these two heads, Paul further subdivides redemptive-history by the following epochs: Adam (vv. 12–13), from Adam to Moses (vv. 14–17), and from Moses and the giving of the law-covenant to Christ (vv. 18–21). Or, in Acts 7:1–53, Stephen identifies three distinct periods: the age of the patriarchs (vv. 2–16), the Mosaic age, which included the time of the exodus and conquest of the Promised Land (vv. 17–45a), and the age of the monarchy (vv. 45b-53). Or, in the genealogy in Matthew 1, Matthew divides up redemptive-history into three distinct periods: Abraham to David (vv. 2–6a); Solomon to the exile (vv. 6b-11); and the exile to Christ (vv. 12–17).

It is Matthew’s structuring of redemptive-history that Graeme Goldsworthy follows. However, in addition to the three epochs from Matthew, Golds­worthy adds a prior epoch that includes creation (Genesis 1–2), the impact of the historic fall (Genesis 3), and primeval history (Genesis 4–11), thus speaking of the era of Genesis 1–11, prior to Abraham. Concerning this first epoch—creation, fall, primeval history—Goldsworthy argues that it provides the main theological presuppositions to all of redemptive-history, which are then worked out as God’s plan unfolds and ultimately culminates in Christ.25

For our purposes, what is most significant to note is that most of these epochal divisions follow the unfolding of the biblical covenants, which we contend is the Bible’s own way of making these epochal divisions. For many like Goldsworthy, the unfolding of the “kingdom” is the backbone to the storyline of Scripture, yet if we follow the Bible’s own “intrasystematic” categories, it is “kingdom through covenant” that captures the Bible’s own internal structure, and thus better grasps the various epochal divisions in God’s plan of redemption.

At this point it is important to ask whether these epochal differences, tied to before and after categories in Scripture, are really that hermeneutically significant? Or, better, is this how Scripture, on its own terms, “puts itself together”? Does thinking through where various texts are located in God’s plan impact the conclusions we draw from Scripture, especially in how we understand the biblical covenants? The answer is yes. For example, let us think about Paul’s argument in Romans 4. In Romans 4, Paul argues that Abraham serves as the paradigm, for Jews and Gentiles, of one who was justified by grace through faith apart from works. Warrant for this assertion is found in Genesis 15:6, where God declares Abraham righteous on the basis of his believing the promises of God. But in order to demonstrate that God’s declaration of justification is for both the Jew and the Gentile, Paul then argues that in the life of Abraham this declaration took place before he was circumcised (which took place in Genesis 17, which comes after Genesis 15), thus demonstrating that Abraham’s justification was not tied to circumcision but was solely on the basis of his faith in the promises of God. It is for this reason that Abraham can serve as the paradigm of faith for Jews and Gentiles. This is not to say that circumcision was not significant in the Old Testament; it certainly was. But it is to affirm that one cannot draw the conclusion, which the Judaizers sadly did, that Gentiles had first to be circumcised in order to enter into covenant relationship with Yahweh. In the life of Abraham, not only was this not the case, but now that Christ has come, that covenant sign is no longer in force (1 Cor. 7:19), due to the fact that, in the plotline of Scripture, God was teaching us that salvation was always by grace through faith. Paul’s argument works, however, only if circumcision is instituted after Genesis 15, thus illustrating the point that texts must carefully be interpreted in terms of what comes before and after them, in order to draw correct “biblical” conclusions.

Galatians 3 is another example of this point and is a very significant text in thinking through covenantal relationships. In Galatians 3, Paul is countering the Judaizers who, like many conservative Jews, “saw in the law given at Sinai not only a body of instruction but a hermeneutical key to the rest of Scripture.”26 In this way these individuals viewed the old covenant as an end in itself and not as a means to a larger end found in Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant. That is why, in order for a Gentile to become a Christian, these Judaizers argued that Gentiles had to come under the Mosaic law-covenant. Conversely, Paul’s argument is that, now that Christ has come, Christians are not bound by the Mosaic law-covenant; rather, we come to Christ by faith apart from the law (vv. 1–6). How does Paul warrant his point? He first appeals to Genesis 15 to demonstrate that Abraham was justified by grace through faith (vv. 6–9) and then argues that God’s declaration of justification in Abraham’s life took place long before the giving of the Mosaic law (vv. 15–29). In light of this, Paul wrestles with the obvious question of why the law was given, but his conclusion is the same: since Abraham was declared just before the old covenant was given, the old covenant cannot set aside the previous covenant.

Hermeneutically and theologically speaking, then, in order to grasp how God’s plan fits together, and, for our purposes, how the biblical covenants fit together, one must locate each covenant in its proper place in redemptive-history and discern how it relates to what preceded it and what follows it. Unless we read Scripture this way, we will misread it and fail to understand how the parts of God’s plan fit with the whole.27 In fact, this was one of the key failures of a Jewish reading of Scripture. Old Testament Jews, along with the Judaizers, did not interpret the law-covenant in relation to its place in redemptive-history. If they had done so, they would have drawn the same conclusion that the New Testament draws: in God’s overall plan, the Mosaic law-covenant is temporary, leading us to what that old covenant was ultimately pointing forward to, namely, Christ and the new covenant. Yet, we must not end our reading of Scripture here: texts must also be read in terms of what comes after them, namely, the canonical horizon.

The third and final context that must be considered in our interpretation of any biblical text is, therefore, the canonical horizon. Given the fact that Scripture is God’s Word and is a unified revelation, texts must be understood in relation to the entire Canon. As Kevin Vanhoozer notes, it is only when Scripture is read canonically that we are interpreting it in a truly “biblical” manner—“according to its truest, fullest, divine intention.”28 In fact, to read the Bible canonically corresponds to what the Bible actually is. That is why, “To read the Bible as unified Scripture is not just one interpretative interest among others, but the interpretative strategy that best corresponds to the nature of the text itself, given its divine inspiration.”29 As texts are placed along the storyline of Scripture and ultimately interpreted in light of the culmination of God’s plan in Christ, we begin to read Scripture the way God intended and thus “biblically.”

What, then, does it mean to be “biblical?” If we take seriously Scripture’s claim for itself and what Scripture actually is, a three-horizon reading of the Canon is the place to start—a theological