"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)


  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.


    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook


    Latest Posts



    Ministry Links

  • « Book Review: Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics | Main | When the Perfect Comes (part 2) »

    In Pursuit of a Macro-Cosmic Biblical Theology

    To many people, the very idea of a comprehensive, or macro-cosmic biblical theology is a little strange. Biblical theology by its very definition is less than comprehensive, is it not? Biblical theology has to do with the study of the revelation of a particular era, a particular biblical author, or so on. Whatever else, it is, it cannot be macro-cosmic: a macro-cosmic view of revelation is the domain of systematic theology; and biblical theology is concerned with developing the building blocks of systematic theology. Once it starts putting those blocks together, it has gone beyond the realm of its appropriate employment, and can no longer be designated “biblical theology” at all. At that point, it is something else.

    So many theologians would assume today – or at least the character of their writings gives that impression. But from the beginning, this was not so. When John Owen published his monumental and prototypical Biblical Theology, he included in its pages an account of revelation from beginning to end. When Jonathan Edwards conceived of an educational approach based on biblical, and not systematic theology, he developed his comprehensive History of the Work of Redemption to facilitate the vision. From the beginning of its prominence, biblical theology sought nothing less than a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the unfolding of God's plans throughout history. In fact, the terms “biblical theology” and “redemptive history” were, for all practical purposes, synonyms.

    Today, this is not the case – but in a way, that is a good thing. The serious biblical theologian of today simply cannot concern himself in detail with all of redemptive history, for the tradition of outstanding scholarship upon which he stands has served to multiply exponentially the amount of information needed to contribute intelligently to the ongoing discussion. In order to add something valuable, one has to limit his area of expertise to some specific field. However, while that good outcome has made itself felt, the unfortunate side-effect is that the very idea of a comprehensive biblical theology has been forgotten. And I fear that this incidental effect has had certain harmful results in the discipline of biblical theology, across the board. My desire is not that today's biblical theologians would all attempt to approach their task macro-cosmically, as did Owen or Edwards; but I would like to see a more general acknowledgment that the task of biblical theology is not done until the findings of any one particular branch have been intelligently incorporated into the broader understanding of redemptive history as a whole.

    This desire, I must confess, has enormous obstacles to overcome: for it is not only hindered by the rise of areas of particular expertise within the discipline of biblical theology; but also, by the very nature of the hermeneutics now employed, as a general rule, within biblical and systematic theology alike. What do I mean by this? Well, the modern accepted definition of hermeneutics is that its goal is to discover what the human author meant to convey to his original audience. Determine that much, and the task of exegesis is done – all that remains is the systematization of the results of that exegesis into a comprehensive systematic theology, or else the application of those results to the modern Christian. However, this definition of hermeneutics is severely lacking – and in proportion as it is accepted in the discipline of biblical theology, it struggles against every hope of a comprehensive redemptive history. If exegesis ends with the understanding of the original audience, then we cannot understand any portion of biblical revelation in any way more clearly or distinctly than the state of revelation had advanced to at that time. Neither can we apply our exegesis in any way which demands a fuller knowledge of redemptive history than the saints of that era possessed.

    But these hermeneutically-imposed limitations have several difficulties. For instance, how can we know to what extent the believers of any era understood the Christ-centered truths of divine revelation? After all, the Spirit who illuminates us illuminated them to things that could not have been grasped by the natural mind (see I Corinthians 2:9-13); and furthermore, we do not know the extent to which religious knowledge had been passed down from old to the newer generations of believers. How much of substitutionary sacrifice did God explain to Adam, after the Fall? How much did Adam pass down to Abel, or Seth? How much did Seth pass down through the generations to Noah, and so on? We simply cannot determine, with definite accuracy, the amount of understanding that the original audience of believers in the Messiah would have had, in any stage of redemptive history: and so this exegetical premise, even if it were valid, would be impractical. But at that, it is not even valid. Paul tells us that the Spirit had revealed things in the scriptures which would not be understood until gospel times (Romans 16:25-27); and Peter tells us that even the prophets themselves did not know all the contingent circumstances of their prophecies which we, as believers this side of the cross, may know (I Peter 1:10-12). In sum, this hermeneutical principle, as legitimate as it sounds, greatly errs in that it makes the human authors of the bible of more practical importance than the divine Author who inspired the whole account as one unified story, and saw fit to foreshadow in some eras what he would later say explicitly. If we would pursue a legitimate, macro-cosmic biblical theology, we must give more precedence to the divine author than to the human authors of the bible.

    I would admit that the goal of modern biblical theology, in determining the mindset and understanding of the original audience as fully as possible, has definite value. It can greatly help us in our understanding of the history of revelation; for instance, the reason that the crowds responded the way they did to Jesus, and the reason he answered them as he did, is illuminated to a great extent by the research of biblical theology, even as it employs the hermeneutic mentioned above. However, I would suggest that the findings of this micro-cosmic biblical theology still need something before they may be profitable. Until we place those findings within the context of redemptive history, we cannot employ them as we ought. And we cannot appropriately place them in their context until we recognize, under and behind the human authors and audiences, the divine author of all of scriptures. So now, to make these abstract assertions more understandable, let's take as an example the modern biblical theologian's insight into the phrase “the Son of Man,” as employed within the gospels, and seek to understand how his valuable research might be better employed to reach the audience of largely uneducated Christians.

    The typical popular author or preacher, when he sees the phrase “Son of Man,” will assume that it refers to the fact that Jesus was born of Mary, and so preach about Jesus' true humanity. Furthermore, when he sees the phrase “Son of God,” he will assume it to mean “God the Son,” and will preach about Jesus' divinity and eternal generation from the Father. However, the biblical theologian will object (and rightly so) that this preacher is entirely missing the point that Jesus was making by employing these terms. In the days when Jesus preached in Judea, the people as a whole were looking for a Messiah – but for a different kind of Messiah than Jesus was going to be. The were looking for “The Son of David,” or “The Messiah” (which is, in Greek, “the Christ”), or “The Son of God,” but they understood him to be a different sort of conqueror than Jesus actually was. So why did Jesus use for himself the term “Son of Man” more than any of those more common terms? It was probably just so that he could infuse it with his own teaching and example of what the Messiah should be, apart from massive popular misconceptions. The title “the Son of Man,” came from Daniel 7:13-14, and describes the one who would be sent by God to accomplish redemption for his people. It was a Messianic term, but one that was not in current usage in Jesus' day. So Jesus took it as his predominant title, so that he might teach what it meant to be “the Son of Man” (that is, “the Christ”), in a way that would not be misunderstood by the common person. Using this term, he taught about a Christ that was basically a conflation of the eternally-reigning Davidic King (commonly called “the Son of God”) and the humble and afflicted Servant of the Lord, whom people then saw as different and manifestly irreconcilable persons. Biblical theologians have corrected this misunderstanding, and given us some valuable insight into Jesus' use of that term.

    However, in the process, many biblical theologians have entirely stripped the term of the obvious overtones of humanity that it carried even before Jesus' incarnation. This title, they insist, may not be used to teach of Jesus' humanity; and in fact, it may even be helpful to re-translate it as “the Sent One,” or some such equivalent phrase. After all, this is how Jesus used the term, and this is how his audience would have understood him.

    The problem with this approach is that it limits our understanding of a rich and meaningful term to the misunderstanding of Jesus' contemporary audience. Is it really appropriate to refuse any insight from its Danielic origin, in which a clearly divine and eternal figure is named “Son of Man,” hinting at the taking on of human nature by divinity in pursuit of the Messianic task? Is it appropriate to refuse to take account of any later usage of this term in epistolary or apocalyptic literature, as we seek its full meaning in the gospels? Yes, Jesus' contemporary audience had a certain idea associated with the various Christological titles used of him, yes, those associations influenced his decision of what to call himself on different occasions, and yes, that interplay may help us understand why certain dialogues unfolded the way they did. But when we use information that gives us insight into the historical background of a book or passage to delimit the meaning inherent in the terminology employed to that precise period, we have transgressed the bounds of appropriate and beneficial usage of biblical-theological information.

    So what do we suggest? Take the biblical-theological insights into contemporary understanding and psychology seriously, but recognize that those findings will not be particularly valuable until they are given their place in the context of redemptive history. The gospel audience may inform our understanding of Jesus' “Son of Man” self-titling, but ultimately, until we place that term within a broader context, one which speaks of the condescension of God to take upon himself human flesh in pursuit of his Messianic-redemptive work, we will be benefited little thereby. Similarly, Jesus' “Son of God” title may be enriched by contemporary Messianic expectation, but to use that contemporary understanding to deny its ever meaning “God the Son” is to deny the whole for the sake of the part. Micro-cosmic biblical theology certainly has a place – but its place is not realized until it has been designated within the flow of redemptive history, and informed by previous and subsequent revelation which pertains to it. In this particular, we have much to learn (or re-learn) from Owen and Edwards.

    Posted by Nathan on March 27, 2007 10:46 AM


    permit me some wind hereon in your sails and give you my MACRO/MICRO wind/spin?

    Jesus was MACRO but had to become MICRO.

    The Apostles were converted to CHRIST'S MACRO THEOLOGY in microscopic ways.

    For instance and one instance only I put forward this microscopic analysis of Paul's MACRO/MICRO THEOLOGY after reading your post::::>

    Paul the Apostle,

    He became a Thessalonian Theologian bringing out both his MACRO THEOLOGY and with Christ's building plans birthed MACRO/MICRO THEOLOGIANS among the Thessalonian Church!

    We can see it here:

    MICRO THEOLOGY, YES?:::> 2Th 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you,

    MICRO THEOLOGY:::>2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.

    MACRO THEOLOGY:::>2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.

    MICRO CONFIDENCE IN THE MACRO THEOLOGY PREACHED::::>2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things that we command.

    MACRO LORD AGAIN::::>2Th 3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.

    MICRO DELEGATED AUTHORITY HERE:::>2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

    MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS:::>2Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,
    2Th 3:8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.
    2Th 3:9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.
    2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
    2Th 3:11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.

    LOOK AND SEE MACRO THEOLOGY:::>2Th 3:12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

    PERSEVERE IN THIS MICROSCOPIC WALK AS MACRO FAITH INCREASES:::>2Th 3:13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good.
    2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
    2Th 3:15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

    MACRO COMMANDS AGAIN:::>2Th 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.

    VERY PERSONAL MICROSCOPIC LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR WHAT THE MACRO LORD'S THEOLOGY DOES BETWEEN BELIEVERS:::>2Th 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.

    MACRO HEART OF GOD EXPRESSED:::>2Th 3:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.


    yes, Amen then!

    I typically don't do this very often...but I have to comment that at first glance, the expression of the content is confusing...but more importantly, I don't necessarily agree with the content of the article/post. I don't have any reason to believe from the Scriptures that we're hindered in ascertaining knowledge from them...because Christ is our knowledge, and the Scriptures are His testimonies...the revealed mind of God. So therefore, I find the "problem" here to be illegitimate in my thinking. I say this just to let you guys know what I think. I appreciate the kindness to let me respond.


    Thanks for the comment -- always feel free, whether you agree or not (how else will we grow in understanding, if no one ever disagrees with us and explains why?).

    However, I'm not sure I really understand what you disagree with.

    "I don't have any reason to believe from the Scriptures that we're hindered in ascertaining knowledge from them...because Christ is our knowledge, and the Scriptures are His testimonies...the revealed mind of God."

    Could you explain a little more clearly what you mean? By "them," do you mean the scriptures? Biblical theologians? I agree that Christ is our knowledge and the scriptures are the revealed mind of God, but I'm not sure how it relates to the post.

    Thanks, and blessings from Christ,

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "v" in the field below: