Matthew Harmon

NOTE: This is a condensed excerpt from my forthcoming (2014) commentary on Philippians.

God’s relentless commitment to the advance of the gospel often works itself out in unexpected ways. From a human perspective Paul’s imprisonment would seem like a disaster. But in God’s providence it was the means by which the gospel would advance in a seemingly impenetrable place—the praetorian guard. Where Paul could not reach by any other conceivable means God had placed him to make it evident that his entire life is “in Christ.” In that sense Paul’s experience is not unique; throughout the history of the church God has often advanced the gospel by placing his people in circumstances and locations they could not reach themselves so that those beyond the apparent reach of the gospel might hear the good news and believe. Perhaps some who read these words are or will one day find themselves in just such a situation.

We can learn from Paul’s example here of making it clear in our interaction with others that all that we experience as believers is experienced in Christ. That means that even the worst of circumstances remain under his gracious rule. Our actions and experiences are not self-interpreting. Just as Paul had to make it evident to those he encountered that his bonds are paradoxically evidence of his status of being “in Christ,” so too believers today must explain to others that their own experience remains under the gracious rule of Christ.

As the name of this website indicates, I have a significant interest in biblical theology. In particular, I am interested in the academic discipline of biblical theology and the various ways that it is understood and practiced. Despite its prominence, biblical theology is understood and practiced in a variety of different ways, some of which are contradictory or at least in tension with each other.

Into this fog of confusion step Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett with their recent book Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice. In the introductory chapter they identify five “problems” that must be addressed in biblical theology:

1. Old Testament connection to the New Testament: Suggested ways include propheyc and fulfillment, christological readings, thematic connections, salvation history, and canonical context.
2. Historical diversity versus theological diversity: Does one see more continuity or discontinuity and how does that shape our understanding of the Bible?
3. Scope and sources of biblical theology: Is biblical theology limited to the original author and audience or include the contemporary audience? Does the canon serve as a boundary or should information from other sources be consulted and included (and if so to what degree)?
4. Subject matter of biblical theology: About what or whom does the Bible speak? Are there any limits? If so, what?
5. Biblical theology as a churchly or academic discipline: If biblical theology merely descriptive or is it in any way prescriptive?

Based on their assessment of work done in the area of biblical theology, Klink and Lockett suggest a spectrum balanced on one end by history and on the other end theology. Along this spectrum they identify five difference “types” of biblical theology:

1. Biblical theology as historical description: BT is a completely descriptive project and uses biblical history as its sole mediating concept. Thus the focus is on the biblical authors with no interest in meaning or significance for today [Example: James Barr]
2. Biblical theology as history of redemption: While similar to the previous category, the difference is that the controlling category is redemptive history. The Bible reveals a progressive chronological unfolding of redemption. Use is made of major themes and overarching structural ideas developed along this redemptive historical timeline. The goal of such an approach is to benefit the church. This approach is strongly exegetically rooted with an eye to the whole testimony of Scripture. [Example: D.A. Carson]
3. Biblical theology as worldview story: The primary category for this approach is narrative as both a literary and philosophical perspective. The emphasis falls on the overall storyline of Scripture with an attempt to balance literary, historical, and theological concerns. [Example: N.T. Wright]
4. Biblical theology as canonical approach: Canon is viewed as both a historical and theological category. The emphasis is on the historical meaning of the text combined with the contemporary meaning of Scripture. [Example: Brevard Childs]
5. Biblical theology as theological construction: This approach is rooted in the theological confession of the church and is often connected with the so-called “theological intepretation of Scripture” movement. It often attempts to position itself outside of the compartmentalized academic disciplines of biblical studies, systematic theology, etc. [Example: Francis Watson]

The authors make it clear that these are not mutually exclusive categories, and that many practice different forms of biblical theology. But these categories are devised to give some semblance of order to the often confusing expression biblical theology. There are two chapters devoted to each type of biblical theology. The first provides a detailed explanation and description, while the second provides identifies a practitioner of that approach and surveys their work. The concluding chapter provides a summary, including a very helpful chart that encapsulates how each type of biblical theology understands the five “problems” identified in the introduction.

Klink and Lockett are to be commended for their fine work. This is not to say their categories are perfect (they themselves admit they are not), nor will all embrace these distinctions. But they have significantly furthered the conversation, and those of us who teach biblical theology are indebted for this helpful introduction to the discipline and the various ways it is approached.

NOTE: This is a condensed excerpt from my forthcoming (2014) commentary on Philippians.

Here in verse 12 Paul stresses that his circumstances have really served to advance the gospel.[1] On a human level, one would expect that Paul’s imprisonment would slow or perhaps even stop the progress of the gospel.[2] After all, Paul cannot plant churches while in Roman custody. But, as Paul states elsewhere “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor 1:25). The irony is that while Rome has imprisoned Paul in an effort to prevent his message from spreading, that very imprisonment has become the means by which the gospel advances. Paul may be in chains, but the gospel runs free. That is the surprising but true state of affairs.[3]

In referring to the advance of the gospel, Paul uses a rare word (prokopē) that occurs just one other place in the New Testament outside of this letter. As part of his instructions to Timothy, Paul tells him to put them into practice “so that all may see your progress” (1 Tim 4:15). The term was commonly used to refer to progress in moral virtue or wisdom, especially in Philo and Stoic literature.[4] But here it refers to the progress of the gospel, which advances like a disciplined Roman legion cutting its way through enemy opposition.[5]

By framing the discussion of his circumstances within the context of the progress of the gospel, Paul makes it clear that the gospel is of utmost importance. Rather than complain about the difficulty of his circumstances, Paul revels in the advance of the gospel. Just as Joseph saw that what his brothers meant for evil God meant for good (Gen. 50:20), so too Paul sees the sovereign hand of a good God behind the evil intentions of his Roman captors.

Paul’s commitment to the progress of the gospel is a needed reminder to the church today. It is easy for believers to get distracted with a plethora of activities and concerns, many of them good things. But do they advance the gospel? Perhaps more pointedly, is the progress of the gospel our primary concern as believers?

NOTE: This is a condensed excerpt from my forthcoming (2014) commentary on Philippians.

The ultimate goal of what Paul prays (1:9-11) is the glory and praise of God. Just as the Lord’s Prayer begins with a request that God would hallow his name (i.e., cause his name to be regarded as holy and exalted), so too Paul’s ultimate aim in prayer is the glory of God.[1] On the day of Christ, when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (2:10-11), God will be praised and glorified because of the fruit he has produced in and through his people. Not even the spiritual growth of the Philippians is exempt from the ultimate goal of bringing glory and praise to God. All that God does for, to, in and through the believer is ultimately so that his own greatness may be displayed and recognized.

What a blessing that God is not satisfied to merely give us the righteousness of Christ, but also fills his people with its fruits! And that fruit is the result of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ given to the believer. Through our union with Christ, we share in his righteousness, both in the legal sense of our standing before him and in the experiential sense of a transformed life that is under the direction of the Spirit.