Of course, we don’t ever hear about these “severe cases” from our media, unless an American is the object of the persecutions.  But I have another periodical that fills in some of these details.  In the November 2004 issue of The Voice of the Martyrs, under the title “Martyred in China,” one reads of two women who “went to the market place of Pusdu Town, Tongzi County” and were arrested by the local PSB “while they were distributing Bibles and other gospel tracts.”  In the official arrest document, both were accused of “suspected spreading of rumor and disturbing the social order.”  After their arrest “they were interrogated through the night of June 17^th and morning of June 18^th.  Then during the evening of June 18^th, Sister Jiang’s village chief told her relatives she was declared dead at the PSB office of Tongzi County, around 2:00 p.m., that day.”  Villagers affirm she was “a strong, healthy lady, without any medical problems.”  Pictures show she was beaten and had her hair torn out.  Her fellow prisoner says she was “kicked a lot, her shoes were torn off, and her hair was pulled out.”  Family members who saw her at the funeral home said that “they saw much blood on her body and scars from beatings on her legs and her neck.”  The PSB would not return her personal belongings, including the clothes she was wearing during the interrogation.

      This, I have to believe, is just one instance among many.  In fact, Presbyter Ji Jianhong, chairman of the national committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant churches in China (a government sanctioned organization), admits as much.  When asked by Mark Galli of Christianity Today (November 2004), about the persecution of Christians in China, he says on the one hand, “There is no persecution of Christians in China,” and on the other hand, “Yes, some Christians get arrested, but not for their faith.  They get arrested because they have broken some law.  It is not against the law to be a Christian or to practice your faith.”

      No, Christianity is not against the law when you do it as the Communist Regime stipulates.  But you can be arrested for any individual expressions of your faith, and the results of the arrests are persecution and death for the faith.

      Indonesia, and other countries with a large Muslim population, are increasingly becoming difficult places for Christians to live and work in missions.  In these countries Muslims target Christians by destroying churches and going on killing rampages.  Because the population in Indonesia is 80% Muslim, and because the government is mostly Muslim, these things are overlooked unless they cause some massive civil turmoil.

      Reverend Yonson Dethan, a graduate of the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches and a minister in the Calvinistic Reformed Churches in West Timor, in a lengthy article in The Reformed Perspective (October 2004) explains some of the persecution going on in Indonesia.  He writes,

If you go on the Internet and type in “Poso persecution” or “Ambon persecution” (Poso and Ambon are provinces of Indonesia, RK), then you can see and read how terrible the persecution is.  We get some information in the newspapers here about it, but seeing it on the Internet was quite something; people were being slaughtered and pregnant women were being cut open and also a baby was, in front of her father, burned up by fire.

      There is much more in the article:  rape, mass murders, church bombings, and more.  All this persecution comes for one thing; confessing Christ and gathering to worship Him.  Would we be ready to suffer like this for our faith?

      Rev. Dethan nicely concludes his article this way,

We believe that through this persecution comes blessing from the Lord, and even a double blessing.  For through it we believers are being tested or purified so that we may be built up for the glorification of God’s name.  Persecution reminds us of the Word of God in Philippians 1:29, that we are granted not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him….  Thus we conclude that persecution is good for testing our faith, for purification, for building us up and for the glorification of God’s name.

      And that is our prayer for the persecuted.

“Judging the Judgment”

        On the home front there is a buildup towards a different kind of persecution.  The media, Hollywood, politicians, and other public figures are bending the mind of society into thinking that traditional Christian values and teachings are of the same ilk as the Taliban mentality.  The build-up, of course, is towards laws that criminalize Christian values and teachings.

      In the August 14, 2004 issue of World we read about some of this education of the American mind.  World editor, Gene Edward Veith, reports on an unbelieving reporter’s surprise at the Christian teaching concerning the last judgment.

        When Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times read the finale in the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, he was shocked to see what Christians believe about the last judgment.

       In Glorious Appearing, Jesus returns and unbelievers are judged.  Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins present their punishment in gruesome detail: Flesh dissolves, eyeballs melt, a fiery fissure opens up in the earth and swallows up the ungodly.

      Mr. Kristoff reads all of this as violence against non-Christians, as monumental intolerance that is no different than the mindset of Islamic terrorists.  The view of “Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet,” Mr. Kristoff observes, is believed by millions of Christians.  “It’s disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.”

      Veith continues,

The Left Behind series is not the best representation of Christian theology (an understatement, RK).  But Christians who disagree with Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins on eschatology and writing style are subject to the same criticism….  In the current cultural climate, the belief that there is no salvation apart from Christ will be anathema.

      Veith is correct.  The media makes no bones about labeling Christian teaching and lumping it with the terrorist mindset.  Why?  The explanation is their own fear of the judgment.  As Paul reasoned with Felix of judgment, “he trem­bled” (Acts 24:25).   The judgment is “the terror of the Lord” (II Cor. 5:10-11).   And so it is labeled “ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.”

      Veith goes on to show that the biblical teaching on the judgment has nothing to do with ethnicity, but with sin, and particularly the sin of rejecting the gospel of Christ.  Christianity, he points out, is not primarily about punishment, but is a message of deliverance from punishment.  “This message,” he says, “will not be popular, since the proclamation of forgiveness through Christ implies a sin that needs to be atoned for.  ‘I don’t need forgiveness,’ many will say, ‘I haven’t done anything wrong.’”

      Because they do not want to hear about sin, they label and lump Christianity with the terrorists.

A Surprise

    And briefly — something the politicians and media missed in the pre-election campaigning and reporting. 

 

Pollsters had focused on terrorism, Iraq and the economy as key issues in the run-up to Tuesday’s election….  But “moral values” was the single top issue cited by voters, and social and religious issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, and abortion loomed large….  CNN’s analysis of the exit data showed that morality was cited as the number one concern by 22 percent of voters (Reuters, Nov. 3, 2004).

      A surprise for the pollsters, the media, and the politicians!

      A surprise for us?  Or, an answer to prayer?

      “….that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 2:2).   

Day of Shadows:

George M. Ophoff

George Ophoff was Professor of Old Testament Studies in the Protestant Reformed Seminary in its early days.  Reprinted here, in edited form, are articles that Ophoff wrote at that time for the Standard Bearer.

      Previous article in this series:  December 1, 2004.

The Types of Scripture (12)

Second principle of interpretation

        Let us now consider another important principle of interpretation.  Reflecting again on the examples of typical materials that we considered last time, we discover that not one of the events, transactions, or persons used by the inspired writers as figures of the good things under the gospel is of a sinful nature.  Hence, we conclude that events or persons of a sinful nature may not be regarded as figures of things sacred and holy.  This is never done — neither by Christ, nor by the inspired writers in general.  Nevertheless, it is maintained by some that this rule has its exceptions.  It is claimed that no one less than Christ can be said to have violated it, when He uttered the parable of the unrighteous judge ( Luke 18).   Let us see.  “There was in a city,” so spake Christ,

...a judge which feared not God, nor regarded man:  And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.  And he would not for a while:  but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.  And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.  And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?  I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.  Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

      It is held by some that in this parable the unrighteous judge is represented as a figure or image of God.  Nothing, however, is farther from the truth.  The unrighteous judge is, in a spiritual-ethical sense, the very opposite of God and may not, for that reason, be regarded as God’s image or figure.  This unlikeness is one of the elements constituting the message of the parable.  The ungodly judge hearkens unto the pleadings of the widow.  In doing so, he is being impelled by selfish motives.  Since God is righteous, and since those who turn to Him are the elect, the beloved of God, we may be sure that they do not turn unto God in vain.  “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.”

      Another parable to which the critics of the rule under consideration might turn for support is the parable of the crafty steward ( Luke 16).

And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him of wasting his goods. And he called him and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee?  Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.  Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do?  For my lord taketh away from me my stewardship; I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.  I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.  So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?  And he said, An hundred measures of oil.  And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.  Then said he to another, And how much owest thou?  And he said, An hundred measures of wheat.  And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.  And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely:  for the children of this world are wiser in their generations than the children of light.

      Christ now gives the application,

And I say unto you, Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.  He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much:  and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.  If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?  And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?  No servant can serve two masters:  for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.  Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

      Now it is held by some that the unjust steward, the representative of the children of the world, is in this particular parable set forth as an image or type of that child of the light who is wise and who is therefore engaged in making to himself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.  But, again, nothing is farther from the truth.  Before explaining the matter, it is best that we first attend to the rather obscure injunction of our Lord, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.”  The meaning is that the children of the light should make their worldly goods bear them interest in heaven.  This is done when these riches are placed in the service of heaven instead of in the service of self.  Our possessions become our friends when we lay them at the feet of Christ, whose property they are.

      The unjust steward is the ungodly one who is very clever when it comes to safeguarding his own interests with God’s riches.  Hence, we may not regard this one as an image or figure of the child of light.  He is not, for he is darkness, and the children of the light are light.  And what concord hath darkness with light?  None whatsoever.  There are, therefore, no points of convergence between the two.  The unjust steward is not a type, nor may he be taken as an example.  Hearken then unto the message of the parable:  The ungodly one as a man of affairs is very wise.  He knows how to make God’s riches serve him to the very best advantage.  Be ye wise as children of the light and see to it that your riches bear you interest in heaven.

Third principle of interpretation

      Another leading principle of interpretation is that the type can have but one basic meaning.  A self-evident truth, we would say.  For the sum total of the typical events, transactions, and persons in sacred history constitute a language that God was pleased to use to convey information from His own consciousness into the consciousness of man.  Now, every one is quite ready to admit that a language consisting of words with divers meaning would occasion unheard of confusion in that circle where the language was being spoken.  The word tree, let us say, would soon become obsolete if it were being used as a symbol of three or four dissimilar things.  The type, then, as the word, can have but one meaning.  In other words, a type cannot possibly be a figure of two or more dissimilar events, transactions, or persons.

      Fairbairn reflects on this principle in his evaluation of the typical exegesis of Classius and Taylor:

Classius makes the deluge to typify both the preservation of the faithful through baptism, and the destruction of the wicked in the day of the judgment; and the rule under which he adduces this example is that “a type may be a figure of two, or even contrary things, though in different respects.”  In like manner, Taylor, taking the full liberty of such a canon, when interpreting the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea as a type of baptism, sees in that event, first the offering of Jesus Christ to their faith, through the sure and safe way to the celestial Canaan; and then this other truth, that by His merit and mediation He would carry them through all difficulties and dangers as deep as the bottom of the sea, unto eternal rest.  In this specimen the Red Sea is viewed as representing at the same time, and in relation to the same persons, both the atoning blood of Christ and the outward trials of life.  The other example is not so palpably incorrect, nor does it in fact go to the entire length which the rule it is designed to illustrate properly warrants; for the action of the waters in the deluge is considered by it in reference to different persons as well as in different respects. It is at fault, however, in making one event typical of two diverse and unconnected results.

      In spite of the above criticism of Fairbairn, however, the typical exegesis of Classius and Taylor is basically correct.  It has the sanction of Scripture.  According to the testimony of Holy Writ, the Red Sea is at once a type of the atoning blood of Christ and of the trials of life.  But to this must be added “in different respects.”  And the above authors did not fail to make this addition.  There is that familiar passage in the first epistle to the Corinthians: 

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

        In this Scripture the waters of the Red Sea are represented as a symbol of the blood of Christ.  The other Scripture is found in Isaiah 11:

And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry shod.  And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

       There is a plain allusion in this Scripture to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea.  Rivers and seas are here represented as types of difficulties which stand between the elect sinner and salvation — difficulties insurmountable by man, yet overcome by Jehovah.  Of such distressing obstacles the Red Sea was also a type. 

      Classius erred, however, in maintaining that a single type may be a figure of two, or even contrary things, though in different respects.  It is certainly true that any thing or person in sacred history may prefigure, in different respects, two dissimilar events under the gospel.  The Red Sea, from the point of view of the cleansing properties of its waters, is a symbol of the atoning blood of Christ.  The event of the waters of the Red Sea engulfing the obstinate Pharaoh and his hosts is a figure of the Christ vanquishing the foes of His kingdom.  But the Red Sea would also have effectively obstructed Israel’s path had not Jehovah intervened.  As such, this sea is also a type of the difficulties encountered by the pilgrim journeying to the celestial city — difficulties which are overcome in that the Almighty God takes a hand.  God makes a path for His people.  The Red Sea, in these three respects, does serve as a figure of three distinct events or series of events.  But it is not the case that the one type or figure has three meanings.  Rather, we are confronted here with three types:  (1) The baptizing of Israel by the waters of the sea; (2) the drowning of Pharaoh by these same waters; (3) the passage of the Israelites through this sea.  On this one body of water has been engraved, as it were, the images of three distinct yet related events or series of events. The waters of the sea are indispensable to the three pictures.

      There is yet one rule remaining to which we shall attend in a following article.  

Search the Scriptures:

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is pastor in the Protestant Reformed Church of Lynden, Washington.

Previous article in this series:  November 1, 2004.

Haggai:  Rebuilding the Church (12)

The Third Prophecy (cont.)

2:11.  Thus saith the Lord of hosts; ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,

    Haggai is commanded to go to the priests with a question concerning several points of law, the law of Moses.  He asks the priests these questions because they were the official interpreters and teachers of the law.  This is especially clear from Malachi 2:6, 7.   There we read:

   The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.  For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

      This particular question is not specifically answered in the law of Moses.  There is, in other words, no specific verse or verses in which the questions of Haggai are dealt with, but the answer could easily be deduced from the teaching of the law regarding cleanness and uncleanness, especially in personal matters, and the priests to whom Haggai brought his questions apparently had no difficulty finding answers.

      They answer these questions, however, not only as a matter of personal interest for Haggai, or even for themselves, though the matter certainly concerned them also, but for the benefit of the  people who were doing the work.  That is clear from verse 14, where the lesson from the law is applied to the people in the form of a rather sharp word of God that concerns the personal holiness of the people in the work they were doing.

      That Haggai addresses this matter of holiness does not mean that people had turned away from God once again and were living very sinfully.  Of that there is no evidence in the text or in the other accounts of the work.  In fact, the blessing that God promises in verses 15-19 is proof that God was pleased with them and with the work they were doing.  Nevertheless, the matter of their holiness was so important that it had to be addressed at the very beginning of the work.

12.  If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine of oil, or any meat, shall it be holy?  And the priests answered and said, No.

      The two questions are very similar.  The first concerns the meat of the sacrifices, especially of the sin offerings (Lev. 6:25, 26) that were offered in the temple.  That meat is called “holy flesh” by Haggai.  That meat was apparently carried at times by the priests in the skirts of their robes, perhaps to the altar to be burned there, or from the altar to be eaten by the priests or the people.  In  instances where they were carrying the meat, Haggai asks if contact with the robe in which they carried the meat would make other things holy.  He mentions other food especially.  In other words, if the robe brushed against other food, would the holiness of the sacrificial meat be transferred to the items that were touched by it or by the robe in which it was carried?

      The priests were able to answer that question correctly with the simple answer, “No.”  Leviticus 6:27 indicates that the garment itself or any other vessel in which the meat was carried would be holy.  The rest of the priests’ answer is not specifically given in the law, that the holiness would not be transferred from garment or vessel to other things.  They must have deduced their answer from those passages in the law that indicated that the people, who often ate the meat of the sacrifices, were not themselves necessarily made holy by the holy food they ate.  It was possible for them to eat and to remain unholy.

      Haggai is talking about ceremonial holiness, the “holiness” of things that were set apart and kept separate for the worship of God.  That ceremonial holiness, however, is a picture of true spiritual holiness, for true holiness also means to be set apart for and dedicated to the service and worship of God.  Haggai, then, is pointing out through this question and its answer that holiness is not transferred by mere external contact with holy things.

      The Jews often fell into that way of thinking.  They thought that because they had the temple and the sacrifices and the worship of God there, and because they attended faithfully on those things, that they were different and better than the nations around them.  Nor were the Jews unlike Christians today.

      That is also a very important principle in the New Testament.  It is a principle that applies to the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper and to the water of baptism.  It also applies, however, to any circumstances in which we have external contact with holy things, worship, the reading and study of the Scriptures, prayer, church membership, the hearing of the preaching.  In all of these circumstances we come into very close contact with holy things, but the holiness of those things, which is the holiness of God Himself, is not transferred by mere contact.

      We must think of the holy flesh in terms of the sacrifice of Christ, which alone redeems and sanctifies, of the Spirit of the living God, and of His own divine saving power.  These things are carried to us in the preaching of the gospel, the sacraments, prayer, church membership, and all of the other means that God uses to give His saving grace to His people, just as the holy flesh was carried in the priest’s garments.  The holy things of God are wrapped in these things, and we come into contact with them only through these “wrappings.”

      The holiness of the things of God, their separateness, lends a certain holiness and separateness to the external forms in which they are wrapped, but the holiness is not further transferred by mere contact with those forms and wrappings.  Hearing the preaching, attending on the worship of God, being a member of the church, does not make someone holy.  This first question and its answer, therefore, add up to a warning against formalism and dead orthodoxy in worship and church membership first of all.

      The principle that is illustrated by this first question and answer applies in other everyday circumstances and relationships of life.  In marriage between a believer and unbeliever, for example, the believer may have no expectation that his own holiness will be transferred to the unbeliever simply by virtue of the fact that they marry.  Those who sin by marrying unbelievers often justify what they do on the ground that their marrying the unbeliever will have a good influence on the unbeliever, but that is a vain hope in light of this Word of God.  Holiness is not transferred in that way.

      We learn that same principle in the rearing of our children.  Our own personal holiness and the holiness of godly and pious family life are not automatically transferred to every child who is born in a covenant home.  Holiness does not come in that way, no more than it did in the case that Haggai cites to the priests.

      Holiness comes only as a gift of God purchased by the blood of Christ and given through the Holy Spirit.  The Lord hints at that in verse 14 when He points out that the people of Judah were in themselves and in all the works of their hands unholy.  Even their sacrifices were not holy, without the work of God’s Spirit and the blood of Jesus that was symbolized by those sacrifices.  Church membership, faithfully hearing the preaching, being baptized, praying, do not in themselves make anyone holy.

13.  Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?  And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

      The second question Haggai asks of the priests is really the opposite of the first.  He asks concerning ceremonial uncleanness.  There were many ways in which a Jew could become ceremonially unclean, all of which made it impossible for him to enter the temple or present his sacrifices.  One way a person could become unclean was through contact with a dead body (Lev. 22:4).   In that case a person had to wash himself and was unclean for the rest of the day (Lev. 22:6, 7).  

      Haggai’s question concerns contact of someone with something that had become unclean.  Would the uncleanness be further transferred by contact with something or someone who had become unclean?  The answer of the priests, the opposite of the previous answer, taken from Leviticus 22:4, 5, was that the uncleanness would be transferred.  The person who had become unclean would make everything he touched unclean, even the food he ate.

      To understand the point of the answer, we must see that the ceremonial uncleanness of which the law spoke was a picture of the defilement of sin.  Those laws certainly were used by God to protect the physical health of His people, but the main reason for them was to teach spiritual truths, in this case to teach them about the pollution of sin.  Contact with death made a person unclean because death is the punishment of sin.

      The point of the question and its answer, then, is that while holiness is not transferred by external contact with holy things, there is the real danger that the pollution and defilement of sin is so transferred.  To use a similar example, one drop of filth will pollute much water, but many added drops of clean water will not make the container of filthy water clean.

      The application of this is best seen in the commands in Scripture to God’s people to keep themselves separate from the ungodly (II Cor. 6:14-18).   The danger is always that they will become polluted and unholy.  They must, therefore, maintain what is sometimes called the antithesis, their spiritual separation from the ungodly and from their ways.

      This separation means they may not marry the ungodly (I Cor. 7:39), may not be joined to them in any unequal union (II Cor. 6:14), ought not have fellowship with them (Eph. 5:7-12).   They need not go out of the world altogether, as Rome teaches (I Cor. 5:10), but there must be a clear separation between them, and that especially of a spiritual character.  If that separation is not maintained, it is not the unholy that will be made holy, but the holy that will be profaned and made unclean.  

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

      Previous article in this series:  November 15, 2004

Cocceius and Historical Theology (2)

   In our previous article we discussed Cocceius’ historical approach to the study of theology.  We began to show the error of his “historical (or biblical) theology,” as that is compared to what is known as “systematic theology.”  We continue, now, our treatment of that comparison.

The Importance of Systematic Theology

        Systematic theology is important and crucial for the life of the church.  The reasons are not difficult to understand.

      God is Truth.  God is all truth.  He is the embodiment of truth, and all truth is in Him.  He is one God and, because He is all truth, the truth is one.

      God’s revelation of His truth is one in Jesus Christ, for all revelation is in and through Christ and His work.

      The record of that revelation in Holy Scripture is one.  Even though Moses wrote a part, Isaiah another part, and Jude yet another part, the one Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.  Scripture’s unity lies in infallible inspiration.  Frequently the plea for biblical theology arises from those who make light of divine inspiration.

      Thus Scripture teaches one doctrine of God, with all other doctrines as sub-headings, in such a way that the whole teaches the same truth, and never can there be found any contradiction.  The Spirit does not contradict Himself.  Job 19:25-27 agrees perfectly with I Corinthians 15:42-53, for the Spirit wrote them both.  And Genesis 1 and 2 agree completely with the fourth commandment and Romans 4:17 b, because the Holy Spirit was the divine Author of both passages.

      It is this unity of Scripture that biblical theology denies.  The principle of interpretation “Scripture interprets Scripture” is minimized or lost completely.  With the loss of this principle, the regula fidei (rule of faith) is ignored.

      This latter is especially important.  The whole of the truth that the church has confessed in the past and confesses today is a truth based upon the whole of Scripture.  When we seek to know what God has said about a given truth, then we search the whole of Scripture to find this out.  If we want to know whether the will of God revealed in Scripture requires that infants be baptized, we go to both the New Testament and the Old to learn concerning this doctrine.  We hold steadfastly to the dictum:  “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained.”  Scripture does not give us an exhaustive treatment of one doctrine in one given text.  We must search all the Bible.

      Our confessions contain this regula fidei.  Our confessions bring together what all God’s Word says about a given doctrine.  That is their beauty, their power, their importance in the church.  No wonder that Baptists do not like confessions.  They prefer to prove their points by jumping about from text to text and refusing to interpret any given text in the light of the whole of Scripture.  Arminians are cut from the same cloth.  They will always appeal to John 3:16 , but they refuse to interpret John 3:16 in the light of Romans 9.   Well-meant offer defenders jump on II Peter 3:9 or Ezekiel 33:11.   And when it is shown that their interpretation of these verses contradicts John 12:37-41, they weakly fall back on paradox, and refuse to acknowledge that Scripture interprets Scripture.

      Systematic theology is nothing else but taking the whole of Scripture as one’s textbook, discovering what the whole Word of God teaches about a given doctrine, and relating all the doctrines to each other so that they form one whole.  In this way we come to know the living God in all His glory and perfection.

      If, for example, one possesses a beautiful portrait of one he loves, he does not study each small part of the portrait by itself.  He would never, thus, come to see the portrait as a whole.  Each section, taken by itself, gives no information.  Only when each small bit is studied in relation to the whole can one see the portrait in all its beauty.  Biblical theology thinks that by studying Genesis 17:4 in separation from Luke 2:7 one can come to a knowledge of the portrait of our Lord Jesus Christ, which portrait is in the Holy Scriptures.  This is obviously nonsense.

      Taking the whole of Scripture as one’s textbook does not preclude the historical-grammatical method of interpretation; indeed, following this method enriches one’s understanding of systematic theology and gives one a full and broad view of the one truth of God in Jesus Christ.

The Dangers of Biblical Theology

      Biblical theology, in distinction from systematic theology, leads to many dangers.  Some of these dangers appeared in the thinking of Cocceius.  He became somewhat dispensational in his thinking, because he considered the Old Testament by itself and not in its relationship to the New Testament.  This, in turn, led him to a wrong view of the Sabbath.

      Biblical theology has had its proponents over the years.  A new chair in biblical theology was established in Princeton Seminary for the express purpose of giving the renowned Gerhardus Vos a professorship in the seminary.  Many seminaries have followed the practice by abandoning systemic theology and have taught only biblical theology.  This has led to strange positions.

      One devastating result of this approach to Scripture has been an emphasis on the human authorship of various books.  While proponents of biblical theology have refused to go so far as to deny (in whole or in part) the divine authorship of Scripture, it is not difficult to see how the jump from biblical theology to higher criticism can be made.  The Scriptures are one because they have one Author, God the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit, through infallible inspiration, painted the portrait of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Every part must be explained in the light of every other part.  The unity of Scripture leads to an understanding of the one portrait of Christ, through whom we know the one true God.  It makes no difference that the Holy Spirit painted this portrait of Christ over a period of more than a thousand years.  He alone is the divine Artist, and He never changes.

      But when one breaks Scripture into parts and studies each part in relative isolation from the whole, one must concentrate in some measure on the human instrument, the men God used to write the Scriptures:  Amos, Jude, Obadiah, Matthew, Paul, and all the rest.  One must determine how the writings of each one differs from the writings of the others.  Then one must determine how the theology of one differs from the theology of another.  The result is that one gets (I use familiar clichés found in most seminaries) “a corpus of Johanine literature,” that is, the writings of the apostle John; “Pauline eschatology” — frequently in distinction from and perhaps somewhat different from the escha­tology of Isaiah.  I recall vividly a discussion in a class I was taking in which the professor insisted that any passage in Paul was irrelevant to a discussion of the meaning of a similar passage in John, because we are, after all, dealing with a “pericope in Johanine literature.”

      I am fundamentally uninterested in anything Pauline or Petrine in eschatology.  I am deeply interested, when I come to Scripture, to learn the Holy Spir