Biblical Ground-Motive: The Bible's Big Story (a Repost from Nov. 2009)

The Bible’s Big Story

Without a firm grasp on the Bible’s Big Story, its grand meta-narrative, our understanding of the smaller stories and even the Gospel is hindered. Moreover, given how fast our culture is moving from the Christian heritage to crass secularization, those with whom we would share the Gospel haven’t the necessary historical context to make the Gospel meaningful. What follows is just one suggestion to help improve these conditions.

Systematic-Theologically Stated

In essence, the Bible’s Big Story can be summed up in God creating and redeeming a humanity to dwell among, so that throughout the Story we hear the promising refrain that is finally and fully realized in Rev 21:3, “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”

Systematically stated, this Big Story or meta-narrative is an organic unity that unfolds through four major divisions: (1) Creation, (2) rebellion, (3) redemption, and (4) consummation or new creation. Thus, (1) God creates the universe and man. Originally, the creation and humanity were “very good” in God’s evaluation, by virtue of the entire created order, especially man, who, as prophet, priest, and king over creation, is in a proper relationship with the Creator God, evil being the contrary of this “very good” relationship.

Soon, though, (2) this sweet, loving, sustaining relationship was ruined by man’s rebellion against God. Because God is infinitely just and cannot lie, he was true to his word and decree, and thus brought man and his world under the judgment and curse promised upon man’s disobedience. Thankfully, (3) God is also infinitely merciful, and with the punishment came the Promise—the first promise of redemption, the Gospel (Gen 3:15). The promised “Seed of the woman,” the Coming One, “in the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4), Jesus Christ, stepped into history and accomplished that redemption through his incarnation, life, sacrificial-substitutionary death, resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of the Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (henceforth, these historical-redemptive events of Jesus’ sojourn on earth during his first coming will be called the Christ Event for convenience). We now live in the daily expectation of Christ’s return, when he will bring his redemptive work to a completion with his second coming, bring about a general resurrection of believers and unbelievers alike, and executing the final judgment, once for all to destroy all his enemies, Death and Hades, and the Adversary himself, that old serpent, Satan in the lake of fire. Only then, after the curse, evil, and death that was ushered in by man’s fall is finally destroyed, having been “put under Christ’s feet,” will (4) the new creation—the new heaven and new earth—be realized.

In the present, therefore, the whole creation in general (Rom 8:18f) and humanity in particular is living in the tension between Christ accomplishing redemption (his first coming) and his breaking into history to wrap up all things and bring that redemption to its completion in judgment on the wicked and salvation on the elect (his second coming). So “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). This hope is our salvation.

Lest it seem that we have gotten ahead of ourselves in neatly systematizing all the complex data from Scripture in the four-fold framework above (i.e., creation, rebellion, redemption, consummation or new creation; henceforth, CRRC), we should observe that within the Bible itself there is a similar structuring of the Plan of God, which also bears witness to the beautiful coherence of the Big Story.

Biblical-Theologically Stated

A quick caveat is in order at this point. We need to make clear what we mean when we distinguish between systematic and biblical theology. First, it is not as though systematic theology is unbiblical over against the other, the biblical theology. Rather the two could be fairly understood better as: systematic theology is deductive in drawing its conclusions, whereas the other, biblical theology, is an inductive process. Both, however, are biblical in the sense that each methodology, if done with integrity and fidelity to Christ, will reach ‘biblical’ conclusions.

Therefore, when coming to the biblical data, that is, what Scripture diachronically and organically reveals concerning the major turning points in the Big Story, we find the same categories, only framed a little differently.

There is a literary device known as an inclusio. An inclusio acts as bookends for the content of a given literary passage or even the entire work. That is to say, an author will include his central theme or thrust of a block of material at the beginning and a corresponding piece of the same at the end, thus emphasizing that he intends the reader to bear this central point in the fore of their thoughts while journeying from one bookend to another. One explicit example of the use of an inclusio would be John’s prologue to his gospel (1:1—18).

John’s prologue begins thus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). This last phrase univocally states the deity of the Word, Jesus. Likewise, the prologue ends by restating the same point(s), “No one has ever seen God; the only God [“the Word was God,” 1:1c], who is at the Father’s side [“with God,” 1:1b, 2], he has made him known” (ESV 1:18). John therefore wants the reader to understand clearly from the start that the One who the entire rest of this gospel is about is none other than God himself. By means of the inclusio, then, John emphasizes the deity of Jesus, and his exclusive ability to reveal the Father (1:18c), which is exactly what the rest of John’s gospel is about.

Similarly, and closer to the context now under consideration, we also find an inclusio being used in Genesis 1:1 and 2:4. Genesis 1:1 reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Similarly, Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” These bookends are intended to stress that God, as Creator and Controller, is the absolute sovereign over everything that exists—everything. Such a concept would have stood in sharp contrast to every other prevailing pagan origins stories—whether they be in Moses’ day or our own! In addition, since Genesis 2:4 also serves as the introduction to the following section (2:4—24), they thus direct the reader toward harmonizing the two accounts. (It’s worth mentioning that these two examples are linked intentionally by John with the opening words: “In the beginning...” in a creational context [John 1:1—3]. To then discover that both introductions have a similar pattern with the rear bookend of the inclusio also preparing the reader for what follows is a literary jewel that shouldn’t be overlooked!)

Another strong feature in the Bible is known as chiasm. A chiasm begins and ends with the inclusio but also has more or less members between the bookends, which correspond respectively. For instance, it would follow a pattern similar to this: A-B-C-D-C’-B’-A’. Sometimes these members are comprised of single terms; sometimes they are constructed of larger concepts or thoughts.

With these illustrations of the inclusio and chiasm under our belt, we’re ready to move on and examine their function in the Big Story of creation, fall, redemption and consummation.

Granting, then, it’s overall unity, it should not surprise us that the Bible as a whole has this same features. The first three chapters (Gen 1 – 3) and the final three chapters (Rev 20 – 21) of the Bible have incredible correspondence to one another; so much so that there is sufficient reason to conclude that this pair of triplets form the inclusio that provides the bookends or framework for all the content between them; and the central thrust of the Big Story or meta-narrative, in terms of which all the little stories or micro-narratives make sense, not least the subject, object, and climax of the Big Story—the Christ Event. The Christ Event is the center or chi of the chiasm, making Jesus both the subject and object of all of history. As such, grasping the import of the centrality of the meanings of these member is essential for formulating a biblically robust doctrine of eschatology. This framework could be expressed as follows.


(A) Genesis 1:1—2:24 The Original “Very Good” Creation; God Dwelling with His People.

(A. 1) Gen 1:1—2:3 A general description of creation; God making all things from nothing

(A. 2. i) Gen 2:4—24 A particular description of creation; the dwelling place of God is with man contingently

(A. 2. ii) Gen 2:15—17 Life with God in the garden and access to the tree of life contingent upon trusting and obeying God, and thus keeping his Word.

(B) Genesis 3 The Fatal Fall of Man; God Judges Rebels; Death Enters

(B to X) Gen 3:15—Malachi The War Between the Two Seeds Begins (archetypically seen in Cain vs. Able in Gen 4)

(X) Matthew thru Acts 2; The Christ Event, Redemption Accomplished; the Inauguration of the Age to Come; the War Between the Seeds Settled in Principle; the Holy Spirit descends on the Church, God in flesh (Jn 1:14) and Spirit (Acts) dwelling with His People

(X to B′) Acts 2 – Rev 19 [actually to present] – The War Between the Two Seeds Continues (antitypically seen between those who are “born of God/or the Seed of the woman and those that are “of the evil one like Cain.” See esp. 1 John 3 and Revelation)

(B′) Revelation 20:7—15 The Final Fall of Man; General Resurrection; God Passes Final Judgment on Rebels; Death is Destroy

(A′) Revelation 21—22:5 The New Creation; God Eternally Dwelling with His People

(A′. 1) Rev 21:1—8 A general description of the new creation; Christ recreating all things anew

(A′. 2. i) Rev 21:9—22:5 A particular description of the new creation; God’s dwelling is with men eternally

(A′. 2. ii) Rev 22:6—21 Life with God and the Lamb in the garden and access to the tree of life are contingent upon trusting and obeying God and the Lamb, and thus keeping their Word.

This is only one of many ways that the Big Story can be framed. However this is done, though, it must capture the four elements of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, keeping them properly related to each other, in order to make sense of the Bible’s Big Story. And once this Big Story is clear in your mind, it will amaze you how much more some of the smaller stories make sense to you.

There’s an old axiom: “Nothing is meaningful without context.” Rapidly, our culture and even the Church is loosing the vision of the Big Story. And without the Big Story concretely in place, the climax of the Story, the Gospel of Jesus scarcely makes sense. As Paul said, to the Greeks, those without the Big Story, the “word of the cross is foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Therefore, for both our own understanding and our ability to make much of Jesus through sharing his Gospel with others, we need a thorough grasp of the Big Story of the Bible.

Reading Joel...and the Rest of Scripture

I’ve recently been thinking about the universal judgment in Joel, which is promised from YHWH, and is to take place at "The valley of Jehoshaphat" ('the LORD is judge,' 3:12) or the "valley of decision" (3:14).

If one accepts the traditional idea that this is the Kidron valley (or “holler,” here in the South :), then one's mind is immediately carried backwards to David's journey across the valley, up the Mt. of Olives, to his Gesthemane-crisis-decision with his band of three closest followers (2 Sam. 15:23-33); and, it takes one forward to Jesus' journey through the same route, with his three closest followers, wherein YHWH did in fact execute judgment on his people from all nations (Jn. 18:1; Lk 22:39—46; cf. Mt 26:36—46; Mk 14:32f,), and where they both committed themselves to the will of God.

Two Interesting Chiasmi: St. Mark and Galatians

MARK 5:2—6: Jesus vs. Legion

A.        And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat,

immediately there met him out of the tombs

a man with an unclean spirit. 

B.        He lived among the tombs.

C.        And no one could bind him anymore,

not even with a chain,

D.        for he had often been bound with shackles

E.         and chains,

E.         but he wrenched the chains apart,

D.        and he broke the shackles in pieces.

C.        No one had the strength to subdue him. 

B.         Night and day among the tombs

and on the mountains he was always

crying out and cutting himself with stones. 

A.         And when he saw Jesus from afar,

he ran and fell down before him.

GALATIANS 2:16: Sola Fides

A.        we know that a (Gentile) person is not justified

B.        by works of the law but

C.        through faithfulness of Jesus Christ, so

D.        we (Jews) also have believed in Christ Jesus,

C.        in order to be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and

not by works of the law, because

B.         by works of the law

A.         no one (Jew or Gentile) will be justified.

Jesus', the New-True Adam's, Wilderness Probation

As the heading suggests, I’m cautious of the title “the temptation” for its restrictive connotations. The ‘the’, in ‘the temptation’, seems to indicate that the whole of Jesus’ cosmic level struggle against Satan, sin, and the wicked world system in its defiant rebellion toward God is summed up in the forty days and nights in the wilderness. We know, however, that this is not the case. There are, perhaps, even greater problems if we are to place the accent on the ‘temptation’ of ‘the temptation’, as it averts attention away from the event’s divine purpose in God’s redemptive program and poises our focus on merely a single perspective and design for the event, namely Satan’s. In so viewing it, from the vantage of Satan’s schematic purposes, we are bound to be deprived of much of the critical theological content and the particularly messianic nature of the trial.

Probation is, I believe, the best designation for this inaugural event in Jesus’ Messiahship, for it better represents the Father’s design, the Son’s dealings, and the Holy Spirit’s “driving” (Mk 1:12). And it is these that form the intention or purpose underlying the entire experience. Moreover, probation resonates with the allusive OT paradigms the gospel writers were both assuming and including: Adam’s probation in the Garden (per Lk, and maybe in Mk as “he was with the wild beasts...[harmoniously perhaps?]” 1:13; cf. Is 11:6—9; 32:14—20; 65:25; Hos 2:18), and Israel’s first exodus in all three of accounts, which is obvious from Jesus’ citations from Deut 6 and 8. Thus, the weight and results from the failings of both Adam and Israel, as ‘sons of God’ who were created to accomplish all God’s will on earth, were coming to bear on the only Son of God, the second Adam, the true Israel. His obedient submission to the Father throughout this probative period would thus test and prove what kind of Messiah he would be, therefore, determining the entire course of redemption. The meaning of the wilderness experience of Jesus was the means of demonstrating and defining the Father’s purposes for the Son’s Messiahship, being conferred upon Jesus at the baptism through the Holy Spirit’s anointing and the Father’s declarative pronouncement (“My Son...well pleased”). The Son, upon successfully passing this probative period through submission and suffering (Deut 8:2), would enter into the Father’s messianic mission as Victor in the full power of the Spirit.

The broader context of the passage in all three gospels is, in general, identical: (1) the baptism/Father’s pronouncement; (2) the 40 days in the wilderness; and (3) Jesus’ victorious return onto the public scene, “in the power of the Holy Spirit,” to begin his messianic mission. This consistency is coupled with language in every account that clearly connects the baptism to the probation. The authors, then, intend the two to be treated as a unit; the latter can only be understood in light of the former.

The voice of the Father at the baptism not only declared Jesus’ Sonship, but also defined it. The words: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” brings together to critical strands of messianic expectation from the OT. “This is my beloved Son...” is surely drawn from Ps 2:7, which describes Yahweh’s coming Anointed One, the hope and fulfillment of the everlasting Davidic covenant. It is more than mere coincidence that the very next verse of this Psalm (v. 8) speaks of the Father’s promise to the Son, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” Thus, it should not surprise us that Satan’s final assault (per Mt) came in a similar form to the very same promise. It is not as though Satan’s offering Jesus the same thing (Mt 4:8—9) as the Father, “the nations...their glory,” was tempting in itself. Consider the weight of this dilemma—seemingly same promise, one from the Father of Light, the other from the father of lies. It appears the there would be little, if any, struggle in the rational mind when faced with such a choice. But Matthew treats this as the climax of the battle; the very point on which redemption swings. But how can this be?

This question draws us back again to the Father’s voice at the baptism, namely to the second clause: “...with whom I am well pleased.” This allusion points back to Is 42:1ff, a passage that Matthew cites directly in 12:18—21, as does Luke, twice (1:79; 2:32; with allusions in Acts 3:26; 4:27). The opening pericope of this chapter (Is 42:1—9) begins a section of Isaiah known as the suffering Servant songs. Here Yahweh’s Servant is identified with a role of suffering, meekness, and humiliation, one that finally ends in the disgraceful death in Ch. 53, an end administered by none other than the Servant’s “well pleased” Father. This depiction of the hoped for anointed Messiah, although an accepted vein within 1st century messianism, seems to stand in stark contrast, if not out right contradiction, to the exalted, victorious anointed Davidic King of Ps 2! These two streams of messianic hope—humiliation-Servant/exaltation-King—converging in the same figure were formerly inconceivable in Jewish eschatology. However, it is precisely this paradox that informs a right understanding of the wilderness phase of Jesus’ Messiahship and answers the question above regarding Matthew’s final temptation. Concerning the question, the weightiness of Satan’s offer of the glory of the nations was to seemingly grant Jesus his rightful exaltation as the Messiah, thus attaining, at least in part, the end goal of his messianic work while altogether avoiding the demanded humiliation, suffering, and death that were part and parcel of the Father’s plan for his Son/Messiah. Thus, the questions facing Jesus at every point in the wilderness probation were, what kind and, whose Messiah would he be?

This, I believe, explains best the perspective and burden of Jesus in the crisis. The perspective of the Father, as this would be, for his Son, a time of testing, trial, that is, probation. Even Satan’s perspective is best illuminated from this angle. Satan’s primary objective was not to bring uncertainty directly upon Jesus’ Sonship or even his sinlessness; but, at first subtle then in sudden desperation, an attempt to derail or, better, abort the Father’s plan to establish his Messianic King, his kingdom, and consequently destroy the very works of the Devil himself (I Jn 3:8). Satan’s awareness of the ultimate doom he would face as a result of Jesus’ success, which began principally at the end of the wilderness probation, is also revealed in his citation of Ps 91:11—12. While Satan rightly observes the promise of special providence for the trusting One of Ps 91, he must too have been fully aware of the promise of v. 13 as well, “...the serpent you will trample underfoot!” (cf. Lk 10:19; Mk 16:18; Gen 3:15).

Unlike Adam, who failed in a state of perfection; Jesus, cloaked in humiliation, came out unscathed from his struggle on a sin torn battlefield! More than that, Adam’s success would have kept him from suffering loss; Jesus’ success first recovered Adam’s loss, and then gained the Messiah’s mantle. Hence, in the desert wilderness Jesus proved what was in his heart—humble, absolute trust in the Father’s promises—the kind of submissive obedience God requires of all people, yet never given by a person before, was offered up by Jesus in the harshest of conditions, thus gaining his Messiahship and our much needed righteousness! Our True Joshua, leading us in to conquer the Promise Land (II Cor 2:14)!

Bishop R. D. Campbell on the Law-Gospel Distinction

Bishop R. Dennis Campbell with the AOC has a clear and concise explanation of the purpose of the Law, and the redemptive-historical relation between Law and Gospel as set forth in Galatians.  Below is the first paragraph of his insightful commentary for Monday’s BCP lectionary reading from Galatians 3:19—29.  It is soundly anchored in the traditional Reformed understanding, while being nuanced and articulated in creative ways.

“Galatians 3:19 opens with an important question; what is the purpose of the law of God?  Of course God's law has many purposes.  The moral law, summarised in the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Christ, reveals the absolute perfection of God.  It reveals the will of God for all mankind in everyday life.  It shows mankind how to live in harmony with God and each other, thus it shows the way of peace and happiness (Ps. 19:7-14).  The ceremonial law reveals that those who break the moral law are unacceptable to God unless something is done, apart from the moral law, to make them acceptable.  The law shows, then, that, by our own actions, we are unclean and unfit for any kind of fellowship with God, and that we need to be made clean by something outside of the moral law, or we will remain forever unacceptable to God.” Continue reading here.