Systematic theology applies to present Christian living (but is not ethics).
There are two aspects to this. Firstly, systematic theology aims to summarize various doctrines so as to be understood by Christians today. The inference is that, when appropriate, terms and concepts not employed by biblical authors will be employed by the systematician in order to accurately communicate biblical truth in the present. Communicating to people in a particular cultural context, in a particular point in history, will require careful formulation. Sometimes, only employing biblical language will result in unclear communication. Thus, we can talk about the Trinity (not a biblical word) in order to summarize a biblical concept.
Secondly, summarizing doctrine for Christians in the present implies that there is some relation it bears to life now. And indeed this is so! A doctrine can be viewed in light of its practicality – what does it call one to do? How does it change the way Christians ought to live today? In fact, knowledge of doctrine and obedience to that doctrine are inseparable. One cannot truly know doctrine without being obedient, which is why one of the surest ‘litmus tests’ of the doctrinal knowledge of a Christian is the holiness of his life. One can spout theological aphorisms all day long but if there is no genuine spiritual transformation, there must be a dearth of true knowledge.
Frame (1987: 44) asserts, “Obedience is not merely a consequence of knowledge but a constitutive aspect of it. Without obedience there is no knowledge, and vice versa.” Because doctrine is sourced from God’s authoritative Word, our doctrinal knowledge, ontologically, is knowledge under God’s authority; knowledge that ought to be obeyed.
However, finally, systematic theology, whilst pertaining to present Christian living, is not ethics. The difference is primarily one of emphasis: systematic theology is concerned with what Christians ought to believe and think, while ethics emphasizes what Christians ought to do in various contemporary situations (Grudem, 1994: 26). Grudem, in my view, does not see the connection between systematics and ethics are closely intertwined as I do – nevertheless, the distinction highlighted by Grudem is helpful, for a systematic theology textbook cannot simultaneously be an ethics textbook.
Systematic theology is, to a degree, inter-disciplinary. It has an inevitable relationship with other areas of theological study. These other disciplines often help the systematician.
For example, historical theology tells us what previous Christian generations believed, both good and bad. This provides perspective, and can help the systematician become aware of his own beliefs, emphases, and whether they are biblical or more shaped by his historical epoch and culture. Philosophical theology can help systematicians with being aware of the validity (or lack thereof) regarding their epistemology. Biblical theology seeks to understand the message of the individual books within Scripture, the sections they are contained in, and the historical development of the Bible (and of biblical themes/topics). This will (hopefully) confirm much of what the systematician would glean in his collection of biblical data. Therefore, there is an overall complementarity amongst the various theological disciplines.
All of these disciplines can greatly help the systematician and help ensure that systematics is done well and with self-awareness (historically, philosophically and biblically), but none of them constitutes systematic theology.
Systematics cannot be studied in total isolation, and even if it could, that would not be desirable. Yet, the differences between these theological disciplines must be understood and maintained if one is to produce a true systematic perspective on a topic. There are areas of overlap to be sure, but the distinction must be maintained.
Systematic theology is…bible-based
Systematic theology is bible-based.
It collects and summarizes the teaching of Scripture on a particular topic. All the collecting and summarizing of theological formulations come from biblical sources. The Scriptures are the well-spring of systematic theology. It is not historical theology, philosophical theology or apologetics (although these are sometimes included in a broad definition of systematic theology – one which will not be used here). It engages the biblical text directly, seeking to understand what the Bible says about various topics. It does not do this in exactly the same way that Old Testament Theology, New Testament Theology, or Biblical theology would do this (see below) but is nevertheless thoroughly biblical in that it seeks to pursue only the bible in the search for understanding. It concerns itself only with Scripture. Of course, like all theology, it reflects one’s understanding of Scripture but the material point made here is that only Scripture can thus edit, correct, or improve upon it.
Systematic theology is… presuppositional
So, having looked at the definition of systematic theology, we’re now in a position to understand it better by looking at some characteristics. In what follows, there’ll be a number of posts on the characteristics of systemic theology. Not all at once, mind you, I don’t want people to get too excited. I’ll put them up one at a time so as to temper the pulse rates of those reading…
Systematic theology is presuppositional. “A presupposition is a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another…for a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition.” (Frame, 1987: 45).
What this means is biblical beliefs always trump any extrabiblical beliefs. The Bible must reign supreme in the area of knowledge. For systematic theology to have any value whatsoever (in fact, for any knowledge to have validity), it must presuppose both the existence of God and the inerrancy of His Word. As Van Til (1974: 1) eloquently affirms, “Fundamental to everything orthodox, is the presupposition of the self-existence of God and of his infallible revelation of Himself to man in the Bible.” Christians must approach both Scripture and theology presupposing the truthfulness of the text and the existence of the God the text testifies to.
If they do not, if they approach Scripture and theology looking to ‘verify’ its truthfulness only after investigation, then either reason, evidence, experience or tradition will be ultimate in authority over God and His Word. A Christian cannot approach Scripture any other way, at least not without denying some aspect of what it means to be a Christian. For the Christian, God is real and His Word is true, for those beliefs presuppose what it means to be a Christian.
Now, having presupposed those things, when one does investigate the historical reliability, ethical standards etc. of Scripture, those presuppositions are ‘endorsed’ by such evidence – which is, of course, exactly what we would have presupposed. It is not as though these things verify the presuppositions; rather, they reveal that reason, ethics and evidence all confirm the presuppositions held. In fact, it soon becomes clear that it is the most reasonable position to hold. Thus, while the combined explanatory power of Scripture, logic, evidence and experience is immense, the Scriptures must retain a primacy of position in that they are the norm for interpreting all other data.
Now, of course, in reality it is our understanding of the Scriptures that constitute that norm in our minds, but the principle of a prior commitment to God and His Word remains. God must be Lord over our intellectual life, and presupposing both His existence and the truthfulness of His Word is central to this.
Systematic Theology
Central in understanding the human condition is theology. A pretty radical and counter-cultural statement, but who else will have as clear and loving a perspective on the plight of humanity than the Creator? In light of this, the next few posts over the following weeks will concern themselves with what ’systematic’ theology is, why we need to study it, and how we should go about studying it.
All will help contribute, I hope, to a clearer understanding of the human psyche, and the God who wired our hearts.
Well, then. What is Theology? Theology could be defined as “the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life.” (Frame, 1987:81)
Thus, theology is not a synonym for the Scriptures but is rather the application of the teachings of Scripture to life. Notice the distinction between theology and the Scriptures. Systematic theology then, according to Grudem (1994: 21), “is any study that answers the question, ‘What does the whole Bible teach us today?’ about any given topic.” It systematizes what the Scriptures teach ‘today’ concerning a particular topic.
The place of emotions
I am currently reading through Counseling: how to counsel biblically, by John MacArthur and the Master’s College Faculty. It is an excellent introductory book on biblical counseling. Here is an extended quote of the place and value of emotions.
Emotions are like smoke detectors. One night as I was relaxing in my family room, my children were trying to cook something on the stove in the basement. Apparently, some cooking oil spilled over the side of the pan and caught fire, igniting the top of the stove and sending flames high into the air. The smoke detector blared a high-pitched warning and I was able to throw a blanket over the flame and smother it before it did any major damage.
Emotions are like that smoke detector: they are not the primary problem but are warnings of the primary problem. Imagine if I had silenced the smoke detector with a hammer and gone back to relax in my chair. The house would have burned down! I had to take care of the source problem, the fire. Likewise, some people (and, unfortunately, some counselors) seek to eliminate negative emotions such as depression, anxiety, fear, or rage by attacking the emotions themselves through medication or behavior therapy. But they fail to address and eliminate the “fires” in the basement of their lives, the underlying problems that disturb their emotions.
The smoke detector analogy illustrates another truth about emotions: they should never be ignored. What if I had responded to the smoke alarm by slipping in some earplugs? I would have lost more than my house! Likewise, counselors must recognize the significance of emotions. God has given them to us as outward indicators of what is happening in our hearts, and they are often inextricably linked to the problems we face.
This avoids both responses many people make. On the one hand, emotions are easily dismissed – portrayed as completely irrational and disconnected from reality. On the other, and this is true particularly in Cape Town, emotions are ultimate and cannot be questioned. Emotions act as substitutes for moral reasons, people act, think and say certain things because they feel certain emotons.
A Biblical understanding of both the place and value of emotions avoids both dangers, and affords dignity to humans as rational, relational beings made in God’s image.
Total depravity
‘Total Depravity’ refers to the condition of humanity, individually and collectively.
Unfortunately, the word ‘depraved’ in our culture means something different to what it did when this phrase was first coined in the 16th century but, theologically, what it refers to is the fact that humanity is comprehensively (and negatively) tainted by sin.
“While people are not utterly depraved and evil as they could be, all people are totally depraved in that their every thought is affected, stained, and marred by sin. This includes the mind (Eph. 4:18), will (Rom. 6:16-17), emotions (Titus 3:3), heart (Jer. 17:9), conscience (Titus 1:15) and physical body (Rom. 8:10). The totality of a person is pervasively affected by sin, and there is no aspect of their being not negatively impacted by sin.” (Driscoll, 2010:157).
This depravity is rightly called total “not in the sense that everything in man is as bad as it could be, but that nothing in man is as good as it should be…there is always corruption somewhere in every human action.” (Packer, 1981:76).
This may sound completely implausible to those who would not consider themselves Christians, but consider how logically and empirically weak the alternative view of the human condition is. For even non-Christians have understood and affirmed the ‘total depravity’ of the human condition.
In Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud wrote: “Men are not gentle, friendly creatures wishing for love, who simply defend themselves if they are attacked, but that a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their instinctual endowment. The result is that their neighbor is to them not only a possible helper or sexual object, but also a temptation to them to gratify their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without recompense, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus [man is a wolf]; who has the courage to dispute it in the face of all the evidence in his own life and in history?” (Freud, trans. Joan Riviere, 1963:58).
Leadership
Reflections in the light of 1 & 2 Samuel
What should leadership look like? This is, and has been, a vexed question for many. From political leaders, to military leaders, from the sports field to the office, and from the public to the private spheres, leadership is always an issue. Leaders exercise great power and influence over people, causes and events. Leadership is important. Nowhere is this truer than in God’s community. The Leadership of God’s people is an extremely important office and task. With this in mind, we turn to the books of Samuel to reflect on leadership.
¨ The search for a leader (the judges ‘ideal’)
During the tumultuous period of the judges, Israel lacked true leadership. Occasionally, a charismatic leader would emerge but their work was intermittent, and the benefits they secured limited and temporary. As leaders, they had massive spiritual and personal failings. Sporadic leadership also failed to deliver stability, so the author of Judges proposes a long-term solution (see 17:6, 18:1, 19:1 and 21:25) – Israel needs a king. Alec Motyer (2002:50) says, “The form of these comments, with the first and fourth and the second and third matching, indicates that the author understands himself to be offering a balanced solution to the ills history has exposed.” What is the proposed solution? If only Israel had a leader (in this context described as a ‘king’). Thus, as one enters the books of Samuel, Scripture suggests that the reader should be searching for this leader, looking out for the Judges’ ‘ideal king’. What kind of leader is required to lead God’s people? Who is the ‘ideal leader’ that Israel so badly need? What does the leadership of God’s people look like?
¨ Samuel
Samuel, in many ways, typified what leadership in Israel should have looked like. Samuel was a leader devoted to the Lord. While he oversaw the transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy, and thus did not enter into the office of a king, he nevertheless led powerfully through exercising judicial authority (1 Samuel 7:15-17), prophetic duties (1 Samuel 3:19-21) and even a priestly role (2:35; 12:7). For the purposes of this essay, the following features of Samuel’s leadership are salient.
- Samuel knew the Lord. Despite his early Nazirite consecration (1:11, 28) and growing up in the Lord’s presence and with the Lord’s blessing (2:21, 26), there was nevertheless a point in time during which Samuel “did not yet know the Lord” (3:7). He knew of God, but did not yet truly know Him. God then summoned Samuel in what must have been some kind of conversion experience because from then on “the Lord was with him” (3:19). Since Samuel knew the Lord, he was able to speak on God’s behalf – as the nation recognised (3:19-21). The reason Samuel was as effective as he was, was because he knew the Lord. Contemporary leaders too, must know God – as He has decisively revealed Himself in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. They must not merely know about God but they must know Him, personally, in Christ.
- Samuel was a man of prayer. Because Samuel knew the Lord, he conversed with Him often; he was a man of prayer (1 Sam. 8:6, 21; 15:11). He also interceded on behalf of the Israelites (1 Sam. 7:9, 12:23) despite their sin and rebellion. It appears as though as natural as it is to share joys and sorrows with a friend, Samuel shared his joys and sorrows with the Lord. Leaders are called to be men of prayer – it is unsurprising, then, that the apostles chose specific men to serve administratively so that they could focus on teaching and prayer (cf. Acts 6:4), for one’s prayer life serves as an index of our real knowledge of God (Carson, 1992:17). J.I. Packer (as quoted by Carson, 1992:17) writes, “I believe that prayer is the measure of the man, spiritually, in a way that nothing else is, so that how we pray is as important a question as we can ever face”. Leaders must be men of prayer.
- Samuel proclaimed God’s Word. As a prophet, Samuel’s task was to pass on the Word of the Lord to the people. 1 Samuel 3:11-21 shows the pattern which was to continue for many years to come (Motyer, 2002:59). The Lord spoke, and Samuel obediently passed on His authoritative word – even when he himself was displeased with an unpleasant turn of events (for example, in 1 Sam. 8:21-22). We see this pre-eminently in his farewell address in 1 Samuel 12, where he brings the word of the Lord to Israel again, exhorting them to covenant faithfulness. Leaders today, particularly in the post-modern South African context of pluralism and secularism, must continue to faithfully proclaim God’s authoritative Word. Preaching, then, aims to convey “the authority of God’s message, relayed in God’s presence by one who is seen himself to acknowledge the authority of what he is relaying” (Packer, 1991:199). This was true of Samuel and ought to be true of preachers today.
- Samuel could identify, expose and challenge the idols of people’s hearts. Samuel knew his people, and as their leader, was able to identify the idolatrous motivation behind their request for a king (1 Sam. 8:4-9). Their hearts were looking for security outside of a faithful, covenant relationship with God; they wanted to replace the divine ruler with a human ruler (8:7, 8). Samuel not only identified their idolatrous intentions, he exposed them clearly (1 Sam. 12:16-19, 21) revealing the wickedness and futility of their idolatry. Finally, he also challenged their idolatry (12:20-25) warning them to keep putting their trust in the Lord, and of the disastrous consequences that would follow if they did not. Idols continue to abound today. Church leaders need to be able to identify the idols of the heart, expose them for the futile, counterfeit gods that they are, and challenge people to put their trust in the Lord.
- Disobedient sons? In 1 Sam. 8:1-5, we observe that Samuel’s sons were corrupt. Despite his godliness and love for the Lord, Samuel’s sons turned away from the Lord and were corrupt. We do not know whether this was due to negligence on Samuel’s part, but we do know that it caused damage to Samuel’s ministry (8:5). The New Testament calls leaders to raise their children to be obedient and have faith (Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:4) because, “if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:5). Leaders must be good managers of their families; they must take their parental responsibility seriously. If a man is not a good Father, he will likely not be a good leader.
- Conclusion: Samuel was an exemplary leader; perhaps one of Israel’s finest. Prayer, proclamation, spiritual intimacy and pastoral insight marked his ministry. Despite some possible failings regarding parental responsibility, Samuel constitutes an impressive model of leadership – both then, in Israel and today, in God’s church. However, he was not the leader Israel needed, one must keep on reading Scripture to see if a leader greater than Samuel shall come.
¨ Saul
Saul was Israel’s first King. Chosen and anointed by God, he led Israel successfully before spiralling downwards through disobedience. Briefly, the following can be noted from the leadership of Saul.
- 1. Saul was likeable, unassuming, and a ‘natural’ leader. Saul possessed humility (1 Sam. 9:21; 10:22), despite there being ‘none like him among all the people’ (10:24) he was surprised to be chosen as king. Most of the Israelites initially warmed to him (10:24) and seemed ready to obey him as their leader. Early in his reign, in what constituted a confirmation of his office, Saul defeated the Ammonites and renewed the Kingdom. His natural ability, combined with humility, made him an ideal candidate to lead God’s people.
- 2. Failed in obedience. However, despite his natural ability Saul failed as a leader. His failure as a leader was directly connected to his failure to obey God’s word (1 Samuel 13:8-14; 15:1-35). He had to learn the hard way that even the leader of God’s people must be subject to God’s word, for “rebellion is as the sin of divination” (1 Samuel 15:23a). The leaders of God’s people must be subject to God’s Word.
- 3. Lacked sensibility. Sadly, we realise that Saul simply lacked the spiritual insight to lead well (Hill and Walton, 2000:224). This is evident both early on in his life (1 Sam. 9:10-15), in his disobedience (1 Sam. 13:8-12; 15:13-35) and, eventually, even being criticised by his own son for his lack of common sense (1 Sam. 14:29). This is true of Saul spiritually, emotionally (1 Sam. 18:9) and militaristically (1 Sam. 14:24). Saul declined increasingly into paranoia, apostasy, insecurity, jealousy, violence, and fear (1 Sam. 18-28). In a historical period marked by apostasy, it is easy to see why Saul too, lacked spiritual insight. But, as Hill and Walton (2000:224) say, “that is exactly the point. A king had to be in a different category. Saul neither had nor acquired the theological sophistication to see and perform his role in proper perspective or to function in it successfully.” Leaders must possess spiritual, as well as ‘common’, sensibility. They must be men who are “self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.” (Titus 1:8). Natural gifting only takes one so far – there must be the supernatural gifting of God-given spiritual sensibility. Mature faith leads to sensibility in other areas, and is thus a key requirement in leadership, as much today as it was then.
- 4. Conclusion: In many ways Saul, particularly as he was contrasted with David, represented everything that a leader should not be. Leaders must be sensible, prudent men, both theologically as well as emotionally, level headed and sound in faith (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-13). Saul failed as a leader, and so we must keep reading Samuel in order to find the ‘ideal’ king God’s people so badly need.
¨ David (the ‘model’ leader)
Enter David, the next leader of God’s people; in many ways, the ideal leader of God’s people. The following is but a short précis of his life and characteristics.
- 1. David’s faith in Yahweh. David is described by the Lord as “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14), and so, like Samuel, David knew the Lord. David had strong faith in God, a faith worthy of imitation.
- 2. Love & loyalty. David exhibited real love for, and loyalty to, both Saul and Jonathan – even though he knew that, they were, in some sense, competitors to the throne that he had been promised. In 1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 5 it’s clear that David never intended to harm either Saul or Jonathan. In fact, “the concern of the narrator here was to demonstrate that even though David was destined by the Lord to rule Israel, he did not usurp the throne of Saul” (Hill and Walton, 200:214).
- 3. Patience. David exhibited real patience as he waited for the Lord to fulfil his word. David knew, as did many people (including Saul and Jonathan) that he would one day be king (1 Sam. 16:12-13; 20:15, 31; 24:20; 25:30; 26:25) and he decided to patiently wait for God’s word to be fulfilled. David epitomised Jeremy Collier’s (as quoted by Blanchard, 2006:440) aphorism, that “patient waiting is often the highest way of doing God’s will.” Leaders need to have this confidence in God’s faithfulness; their responsibility is often to wait on the Lord in trusting submission.
- 4. Repentance and faith. David committed many serious errors, often the result of rash behaviour. These range from lust, murder (2 Sam. 11) and parental irresponsibility (2 Sam. 13-14) to the sinful taking of the census (2 Sam. 24). However, despite his many failings, David modelled repentance well (Ps. 32; 51). Leaders will sin, and when they do, they need to repent. Today many leaders do not model repentance for their community because they act as though they never need to repent. However, leaders will sin, the issue is whether they, like David, will repent, and model repentance for others.
- Success came because of the Lord. David experienced much success because he depended on the Lord. “For thirty-three years David reigns over a united kingdom, giving him a reign of forty years in all. David’s rise to power is summed up in 2 Samuel 5:10; he was successful because ‘the Lord God of hosts was with him’” (Strauss: 2000). Today, as then, leaders must realise that success comes because of the Lord. Leaders need to have a God-centred view of ministry success.
- 6. Failure. David failed as a king, he failed as a husband, and he failed as a father – being unable to govern his nation and family because he was unable to govern himself (Motyer, 2000:63). David failed publicly because he failed personally. Ministry effectiveness is inextricably linked to a well-disciplined personal life. Michael Cassidy (1991:243), writing to church leaders, says, “We long for greater effectiveness in ministry but we know that again and again we torpedo that coveted reality by the sinfulness and undisciplined nature of our personal lives.” That was, unfortunately, true of David and true of many leaders today. It is unsurprising that in the New Testament church leaders are called to be self-controlled – masters of themselves (see 1 Timothy 3:1-13).
- Conclusion – 2 Samuel 21-24. David’s psalms at the end of Samuel act as a conclusion of sorts. In them, God is acknowledged as the reason for David’s leadership accomplishments. David’s life points us to the sufficiency of God’s grace (Ellsworth, 1998:13). The two Psalms here “give a general commentary on David’s experience of God. Much of his reign had been occupied in struggling against a variety of enemies but he had won through to a period of peace. He must have been a man of great ability, but in this psalm all the credit for victory and success is given to God” (Payne: 1994). Leaders are not God; it is not in their power to do only that which God can do. David recognised his dependence on the Lord, and that is what made him such an outstanding leader.
However, Samuel ends with the reader still wondering – where is the ideal King? The Judges’ ideal leader cannot be found in the books of Samuel, for neither Samuel, Saul nor even the great David was the leader that Israel needed them to be. In some ways, they all failed. They did not embody, completely, what the nation needed. Indeed, this is how the Old Testament ends – with the reader still looking for this ideal, yet elusive, King/leader.
¨ The ultimate leader: Jesus
The New Testament begins with a song similar to Hannah’s (cf. Luke 1:46-56). Mary, knowing that she is to give birth to a leader greater than Samuel, bursts out in praise to God in reply to her cousin, Elizabeth’s comment (Luke 1:45). Marshall (1994: 983) writes, “Mary’s poetic reply…uses the form and language of a Jewish psalm and is saturated with echoes of OT praise to God. Inspiration for the words came from 1 Sa. 2:1–10, the song of Hannah after God had given her a child.” 1 Luke goes on to show that as Jesus grew up, He was “filled with wisdom. And the favour of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40). Here was a great leader, as we read in the rest of Luke’s Gospel. Nevertheless, unlike Samuel, Saul or even David, he did not fail in any way. Because, as Macarthur (2003:91) writes, “the events of David’s life recorder in Samuel foreshadow the actions of David’s greater Son (i.e., Christ) in the future”. The books of Samuel foreshadowed Jesus. He was a truly blameless leader; at last, here was the ideal King! It is unsurprising therefore, that at his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the crowds cried out, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Luke 19:38). Paradoxically, it is as this perfect leader is crucified for his imperfect people that we see his glory most clearly. He is the ultimate leader, the King who dies for His people. It is through his perfect life, his sin-bearing death, and his vindicating resurrection, that Jesus demonstrates that he was and is the ultimate leader, the long-awaited King. Moreover, because His righteousness is imputed to those who believe, they are empowered to lead as he did. This is why the leadership of God’s people today is conformity, not simply to Samuel, Saul or David, but conformity to Christ. Jesus is the perfect leader.
¨ The leadership of God’s people today: Christ-likeness
The leadership qualities required by the New Testament all find perfect expression in Christ, which is why church leaders today must be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). Leaders are to be, above all, Christ-like. Thankfully, Jesus is not only our model but also our means. It is as leaders live in Christ that they will be able to lead as Christ.
The temptation is to appoint the gifted and charismatic to leadership positions. However, as we have seen, the Scriptures present a high standard for leadership, in terms of character and competence – both in the era of Samuel and in the days of the early church. Today is no different; in this morally relativistic, culturally adventuresome, sexually confused and ethnically diverse world God’s people need to have Christ-like leaders.
Bibliography
- BLANCHARD, J. 2006. Complete Gathered Gold. Darlington: Evangelical Press.
- BIBLE. 2001. The English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers.
- MOTYER, A. 2001. The Story of the Old Testament. London: Baker Books.
- MACARTHUR, J. 2003. The MacArthur Bible Handbook. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
- MARSHALL, H. I. 1994. Luke. (In Carson, D. A., France, R.T., Motyer, J,A. & Wenham, G.J., eds. New Bible Commentary. 21st Century Edition. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
- STRAUSS, M.L. 2000. David: The new Dictionary of Biblical Theology. (In IVP Essential Reference Collection) [CD-ROM]
- PAYNE, D.F. 1994. Samuel: New Bible Commentary. (In IVP Essential Reference Collection) [CD – ROM]
- CASSIDY, M. 1991. The search for ministry effectiveness in the modern world. (In Eden, M. & Wells, D.F., eds. The Gospel in the Modern World. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.)
- PACKER, J.I. 1991. Authority in Preaching. (In Eden, M. & Wells, D.F., eds. The Gospel in the Modern World. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.)
- HILL, A.E. & WALTON, J.H. 2000. A survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
- CARSON, D.A. 1992. A Call to Spiritual Reformation. Hampshire: Inter-Varsity Press.
ELLSWORTH, R. 1998. The Shepherd King. Durham: Evangelical Press.
[1]OT: Old Testament
Celebrating the Jubilee
Below is a sermon I had to recently write for Bible College. It’ll let you in on how I think the Jubilee was fulfilled in Jesus, and how we are to ‘celebrate’ it today. Read it, and share your thoughts…
Introduction: A society of oppression – groaning for liberation. Steve Biko, in ‘I write what I like’ (2004:30-31), describes the inner psychological oppression of an African man under the apartheid government: “the type of black man we have today has lost his manhood. Reduced to an obliging shell, he looks with awe at the white power structure and accepts what he regards as the ‘inevitable position’. Deep inside his anger mounts at the accumulating insult, but he vents it in the wrong direction…in the privacy of his toilet his face twists in silent condemnation of white society but brightens up in sheepish obedience as he comes out hurrying in response to his master’s impatient call…his heart yearns for the comfort of white society and makes him blame himself for not having been ‘educated’ enough to warrant such luxury. Celebrated achievements by whites in the field of science – which he understands only hazily – serve to make him rather convinced of the futility of resistance and to throw away any hopes that change may ever come. All in all the black man has become a shell, a shadow of a man, completely defeated, drowning in his own misery, a slave, an ox bearing the yoke of oppression with sheepish timidity.”
Oppression. The futile hope of positive change. Biko was writing during a particularly oppressive time in our country’s history – but it is a state experienced by all of us, to a degree. Biko so eloquently describes what we can all – although, of course, not in the same way - relate to. All of us experience brokenness, misery, oppression, defeat and futility. Unjust economic systems, social structures and abusive relationships characterize our world; characterize our existence. If you have not felt this yet it is becuase you simply have not yet lived long enough.
Oppression, a sense of exile, a lack of hope, and personal, existential dislocation is endemic to what it means to live in this world. Personally and corporately, physically and spiritually, we know what bondage and oppression are. What we need is liberation; we need to be restored; our world needs liberty and restoration. With the weight of this oppression in mind, let’s turn to the biblical hope of the Jubilee: what it meant, how Jesus fulfills it, and what it means for us to celebrate it today.
Read Leviticus 25:8-55.
The Jubilee: primary meaning to the primary audience
We best understand the original meaning of the Jubilee to its original audience by understanding its social, economic and theological purpose.
Socially, the purpose of the Jubilee was to protect family life in Israel. Specifically, verse ten, each indentured debt ‘slave’ could “return to his clan.” Debts were cancelled. Those bound by their debts were liberated. Verse 10 also states that the ancestral land was to be returned to the original clan; restored to the original, ancestral, owners. This happened on the Day of Atonement (verse 9) – as God had ‘cancelled’ their sin-debt against Him, they were to cancel the debts owed them. This would have prevented the poverty of one generation economically crippling the following generation; poverty was checked/halted by the Jubilee. Every 50 years, there was a ‘fresh start’ – back on the ancestral land with no debt. Thus, through the liberation of those people in debt, and through the restoration of ancestral land, the jubilee would have prevented social/family disintegration by preserving a clan on its property.
Economically, the Jubilee aimed to preserve the original equitable distribution of land. When the Israelites would enter the promised the land it was to be distributed equitably (this happened, in Joshua 13-21), based on clan size and need. The Jubilee institution aimed to preserve that economic equality in order to prevent a few wealthy families eventually accumulating most of the land – and the majority of Israelites living as peasants. Another economic implication of the Jubilee was that the ancestral land was inalienable – vv. 23a, 34. If one reads verses 13-17, you see that the price paid for arable land was whatever value would be gained from the harvests until the Jubilee. One was essentially paying for the harvests, not the land. By preserving an equitable distribution of land and creating inalienable property rights, the jubilee aimed to maintain many small families on their own land. It guarded against the excesses of wealth and the indignity and danger of poverty. It therefore protected the socio-economic fabric of society, helping ensure a stable, peaceful social and economic order.
The theological purpose was two-fold: Firstly, it affirmed the fact that the land belonged to God – read verse 23. The land was God’s; it did not belong to the Israelites. Verse 23 also teaches us, secondly, something about God’s people: He says to them, “You are strangers and sojourners with me.” The Israelites did not own the land, they were simply guests and tenants – how then could they sell property that they did not own? Another theological purpose of the Jubilee concerning God’s people had to do with slavery. Israelites could not be sold as slaves (verse 42) to other Israelites – because all the Israelites were slaves of Yahweh. Yahweh was their master and owner. Read verse 55. Once they were the slaves of Pharaoh but now they were the slaves of Yahweh – and they could not be re-sold into slavery.
Here we see, then, the original social, economic and theological purpose of the Jubilee for the original audience: it protected the family, ensured a level of economic equality and reminded the Israelites that they and the land both belonged to Yahweh. It was a glorious institution, it positively affected the socio-economic fabric, the dignity of the poor, and the theology of Israel. The jubilee touched the Israelites socially, economically and spiritually. Debts cancelled, land restored, dignity maintained, freedom bestowed. Celebrating the jubilee affected all their relationships: their relationship with each other, their land, and their God. What an incredible institution; what an incredible God!
Prophetic Old Testament development of the Jubilee.
Scripturally, it is uncertain whether Israel ever celebrated the Jubilee. Their spiritual fidelity was abysmal, and because of their repeated disobedience and rebellion, God exiled them out of the land. This exile, while literal for the historic Jews, also depicts humanity’s fate: we are all exiled from the blessing of God’s presence. Despite this exile, however, the Jubilee hope never died. Hundreds of years later, Isaiah the prophet developed the Jubilee hope – maintaining but also transcending the economic terms of liberty and restoration. He wrote of the Lord’s chosen servant, one who brings justice – particularly for the vulnerable (Is. 42:3, 7). In an obvious allusion to the Jubilee, chapter 61 of Isaiah states that this servant will “proclaim liberty to the captives… [and] proclaim the year of our Lord’s favour”. In this amazing chapter, Isaiah applies Jubilary imagery to the messianic mission of the Lord’s anointed servant. He expands its significance beyond the economic realms to include national renewal (61:4-7) and global salvation (61:10-11).
Yet, despite the return to the land from exile under the Lord’s servant Nehemiah, Israel never really experienced this. Israel never really underwent a national renewal, nor did they proclaim salvation to the nations. The Old Testament ends with us waiting for this Jubilee to occur. The Messiah still needs to come – proclaiming liberty and bringing restoration. The Messiah needs to usher in the Jubilee. We realize that what Israel need, indeed what humanity needs, is liberty and restoration. We need the Jubilee. The prophets knew this. We know this; we feel this. And we need liberty from more than just economic debt. We are enslaved to our selfishness. We are enslaved in unjust social structures and relationships. Spiritually, physically, economically socially, existentially – we need liberation and restoration. Tim Chester (2004:87) writes “people today still long for liberation. Liberation from the knock of the loan shark, from dependency on drugs, from the bottle, from cycles of violence, from the threat of a poor harvest, from the fear of corrupt officials. We live in a society of broken individuals needing liberation and longing for home.” Our world is in need of holistic restoration. We need more than to be restored to our ancestral land – we need a cosmic restoration.
This is what the Jews were waiting for, it’s what they needed – and this is what we all need. The Israelite nation was waiting for liberty and restoration.
Jesus’ interpretation & fulfillment of the jubilee.
Israel was particularly aware of this need for liberty and restoration during the lifetime of Jesus. Groaning under Roman oppression, economically exploited and experiencing increasing social fragmentation, the Jewish nation needed liberty and restoration. In awareness of the prophetic hope of jubilary restoration, Jesus stood up in the synagogue and read from Isaiah 61.
Luke 4:16-21, “16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” “
His claim was that He would be the one who would usher in the promised messianic liberty and restoration. Imagine the excitement in the room – imagine the incredulity. Jesus came to bring liberty and restoration. And as we continue reading Luke, we discover what it means for Jesus to fulfill these Jubilee hopes, how costly it will be for Him to secure liberty and bring restoration. Because as we read, we realize that we all need liberation. When Jesus said that He came to call “sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:32) and that He had come to “seek and save the lost” (Lk. 19:10) – He was referring to us. He was referring to humanity – sinful, lost, confused, rebellious, enslaved, exiled humanity.
The apostle Paul explains how Jesus liberated us. Colossians 2:13-14,
13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
What Paul is saying here is that we – and all of humanity – were dead in our sin. Our sin had cut us off, exiled us, from life with God. The consequences of sin are holistic – holistically bad: alienation from God, each other, our world and even internal alienation in our broken psyches. Our sin has exiled us, alienated us – we are dead in it. Yet, God has made us alive with Jesus by forgiving our sin. Paul then uses a powerful image to explain how this liberation happened. Forgiveness happened because God cancelled “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Imagine a great IOU – a legal document in which humanity acknowledged the total obedience we owe to God. All of us have ‘signed’ this IOU – but now it stands against us rebels because of God’s demands of total obedience. God demands total obedience and we have rebelled. The document, this great IOU now stands against us; it condemns us. It is as though we have signed a document that proves our guilt, it hems us in, accuses and suffocates us. We are in God’s debt because we have sinned against Him. But now, in Christ, God has forgiven us by canceling the IOU. In fact, He has completely removed this IOU from the situation entirely by nailing it to the cross. This IOU has no more bearing on our situation – it has been totally removed, nailed to the cross. It has no more power over us – we are no longer in its debt or under its condemnation. God, in Christ, has cancelled “the debt of obedience that we had incurred” (Moo, 2008:212). We are free. Liberty is ours in Christ because of the cross. Jesus secures our freedom by paying our debt.
The Jubilee simply declared that all debts were cancelled – but Jesus had to pay. The hope embedded in the Jubilee was realized by the cross of Christ.
As Moo (2008:212) so clearly explains, “Christ took upon Himself the penalty that we were under because of our disobedience, and His death fully satisfied God’s necessary demand for punishment of that disobedience.” Jesus liberates us from sin and condemnation. Jesus, because of his death on the cross, is now restoring and will ultimately restore all things. The liberation and restoration concepts found in the jubilee have, and will, become reality because of Jesus’ death on the cross.
Early Church & present church: our future hope & present ethic
The early church understood this. Peter understood that, because of the cross, cosmic restoration would happen (Acts 3:21). That is, Peter took “the jubilee hope and applied it, not just to the restoration of land to farmers but to the restoration of the whole creation through the coming Messiah” (Wright, 2004:206). God is going to restore all things one day because of the cross. The early church’s response to this jubilee hope of cosmic restoration massively affected the socio-economic sphere. Because of this certain future restoration, they shared their lives and possessions in the present. In fact, by sharing their lives and possessions in the present, they were ‘practicing’ or ‘rehearsing’ the approaching, final restoration. They were making God’s glorious, as-yet-invisible-future visible in their present community life. They were living in the present as they would live for eternity. The early church’s communal, earthly life was a small picture of what our future, heavenly communal life will look like. The future hope came with an attached present ethical response. And their mutual generosity resulted in there not being “a needy person among them” (Acts 4:34). Acts 4:32-35 describes the early church, which helped each other economically, in “terms that echo the fulfillment of the hopes of the jubilee and its related sabbatical institutions” (Wright 2004:206, cf. Duet 15).
What this means for us today is this: the Jesus community is to celebrate the jubilee in all its fullness. We too, like the early church, are to live lives that demonstrate our freedom and anticipate our future restoration. This will include remembering and proclaiming the liberating Gospel, and responding to the final restoration hope by sharing our lives and possessions now. We proclaim liberty – the freedom from sin and wrath that is only found in Jesus. And in our communities we ‘practice’ restoration by sharing lives and possessions which acts as a signpost to the future, final restoration.
Christian communities celebrate the jubilee by proclaiming liberty and practicing restoration. The jubilee functions for the people of God today much as it did in the Old Testament – acting both as a future hope as well as a current ethical demand. Because Jesus has set us free, and can set others free – we proclaim liberty. Because He will come back, bringing complete restoration (cf. Acts 3:21), we can ‘practice’ that restoration now by restoring dignity, justice and opportunity to the vulnerable and deprived.
We proclaim liberty through preaching the Gospel. We practice restoration through a shared, community life. This is holistic, integral mission. This is what it means for Christian communities to celebrate the jubilee today. As Tim Chester so succinctly says (2004:176), “We are called to be the jubilee community in which the poor are welcomed, included and strengthened. We are the place on earth where God’s future can be seen.”
Bibliography:
- Wright, C.J.H. 2004. Old Testament ethics for the people of God. Ebbw Vale: Inter-Varsity Press. 206p.
- N.M. Biko. 2004. I write what I like. Northlands: Picador Africa. 30-31p.
- D.J. Moo. 2008. The letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 212p.
- Chester, T. 2004. Good news to the poor: sharing the Gospel through social involvement. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. 87p and 176p.
The return of the blog post
Yes, it has been a while. For the three of you who read this blog (thank goodness for a spouse and parents) you may have been wondering why it has been so silent. But, at long last, thanks to the intervening power of the Neotel Data card and the subsequent access to the Internet it brings, the blog post has returned.
Mainly, it has been because my wife and I have joined, and are helping plant, Vox City Church. This has been a fantastic, soul-enriching journey thus far (all three months of it) and we are looking forward to being on mission in a gospel-centred community. We love the vision of Vox, and we look forward to being used by God to serve in the great city of Cape Town. It has meant that we are a lot more pressed for time, as I am also studying at the Bible Institute in Kalk Bay, whilst continuing with some of the student work I started last year.
We are loving this new chapter of serving God. While life continues to be a journey filled with joy and pain, frustration and productivity, we are experiencing the benefits of doing life in community.
This blog will probably refocus as a result. So far, it has been used as a platform for general theological reflections on how to re-connect with God, our world and ourselves. This is because I have a deep love for missional theology (click here to find out more about it).
Kirst and I are now going to use it more for keeping people updated with our lives, ministry, and particular issues we are wrestling through in our missional community. Not that this excludes missional theology, rather, it brings more of a local, Cape Town, Vox city church, focus onto it. For those of you who support us via prayer, friendship or financially, this may be a way you can stay updated more easily.
Thanks for tuning in, we look forward to continuing to be a part of this journey with you.
