Reading Guide: Christ of the Consummation: The Testimony of the Four Gospels, Volume I
A reading guide for the book by O. Palmer Robertson
Introductory Thoughts
There is actually a long-standing feud within Reformed Protestantism between systematic and biblical theologians. Though mostly a cold war, it can at times, heat up. The aftermath often leaves the combatants more entrenched on their respective side. In his forward, D.A. Carson laments the stand-off between systematic and biblical theologians and reminds us all that we should see them as “complementary disciplines” (xx). Biblical theology needs systematic theology and systematic theology needs biblical theology.
As Carson rightly notes, the great advantage to Biblical theology—the category to what Robertson’s project belongs—is its attention to the “historic development of redemptive history” (xxi). The Bible is a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It involves real characters, not the least of which is the Lord God himself, but also men like Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David. While God is eternal, his covenant people are not. They are born, mature, and eventually die. All the while social, political, and even covenantal contexts change and progress. The unity of Scripture, therefore, is in the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive purposes that never changes despite all the change in characters, settings, and circumstances.
Systematic theology serves as a helpful guardrail to biblical theology in balancing the “atemporal” truths of God’s character and redemptive purposes against the “temporal” reality of salvific history (xx). The first volume in Robertson’s New Testament biblical theology is a masterful example of this balancing act.
Throughout the book, Robertson touches on several themes including the progressive revelation in the New Testament Gospels. Here are my takeaways from Robertson’s book:
Three Takeaways from Christ of the Consummation
First, Robertson’s book embodies the principle that all study of theology should ultimately push us closer into fellowship with our Savior. Theology is the study of God but it can never end with mere head knowledge. The Scriptures make a demand on us: will we believe its testimony or not? As Robertson himself puts it: “The only proper response to Jesus as the resurrected Lord is not merely submission to his authority. As repeated incidents recording in the Gospels indicate, it is worship that he must receive” (126). Robertson embodies this principle by ending nearly every major section with an evangelistic aside. He wants his reader to learn and believe.
The Gospels were written with a purpose, Robertson says. Primarily, they exist as “eyewitnesses” to the events of Jesus’ life and ministry (4). Their precision of detail and inclusion of unexplainable or unsavory details only attest to their authenticity (159). But while the Gospel writers are certainly documenting historical facts, they are also introducing their own analysis of the events they witnessed (158). These men were not simply historians but theologians as well.
Which brings us to a second takeaway: the primary resource which New Testament authors used to interpret and analyze Jesus and his ministry was the Old Testament. Readers of the Gospel theologians, says Robertson, must “seek the depths of the old covenant as the basis of their new covenant faith” (11).
Why is this controversial? Modern scholarship on the New Testament has increasingly relied on Second Temple Judaism as the main lens for interpreting new covenant events. And while there may be some things to be gleaned from such endeavors (the practice of baptism comes to mind), it remains true that the Scriptures themselves refer exclusively to the Old Testament Scriptures. As important as the Maccabean Revolt may have been to first-century Jews, the Gospel authors situate Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection in the Old Testament covenants, the prophets, and the Psalms.
It is not that modern scholarship in Second Temple Judaism is wrong or bad per se. But we must give our upmost attention to where the text leads. In this case, faithful study of the Gospels will include “coming to understand how the Old Testament in its total message shapes the very heart and substance of the New Testament” (15).
It is here that C. John Collins’ description of a redemptive-historical imagination is helpful. Foundational to that imagination is a exposition rightly oriented to the “Big Story” of the Bible in all its parts, something we can share with the original authors and audience: “we do best when we mimic the first audiences of the New Testament, and read the New in light of the Old, rather than the other way around.”1
Finally, Robertson reminds us to “let each epoch present its own favored agenda” instead of imposing our own “preselected topics” on the text (10). This is the biblical theologian in Robertson speaking. But it's also a reminder that “each phase in the progression of revelation throughout the new covenant era manifests its specific contribution to the full picture of God’s redemptive purposes” (10).
It is not a denial of Biblical inerrancy to say certain themes and principles in previous writings are developed and expanded in later ones. Indeed, we acknowledge as much when we affirm Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the old covenant Scriptures. It is not that those Old Testament writings are deficient or lacking in some way. As Collins again reminds us, “you do not have to ‘do’ anything to the Old Testament to make it Christian Scripture: it already is Christian Scripture” (Collins, 1). The Big Story is already heading that way even if it finds its fullest meaning in the later testimony of the Gospels. Similarly, the apostolic writings expand and apply the gospel of Jesus Christ in a post-ascension context. Eternal principles like God’s grace, election, justification by faith alone, and the paradox of a Suffering Savior begin in seed form and eventually blossom in the revelation of Jesus Christ as Lord. In that way, Robertson reinforces a particularly Reformed hermeneutic that opens our eyes to the wonder, mystery, and glorious truth of God’s revealed Word.
Key Sections
D.A. Carson’s foreword helpfully explains in simple terms the sometimes heated debate between systematic and Biblical theology (xix-xxi).
Make sure to read Robertson’s own articulation of his stated goal and distinctives (9-20).
What does Jesus’s appropriation of the title of “Son of Man” mean (43-48)? This is a masterful example of what riches solid exposition can glean when doing biblical theology well.
What do we make of the distinctive witness of John’s gospel (250-318)? Robertson demonstrates well that differences—in this case between John’s pneumatic gospel and the Synoptic Gospels—does not necessarily mean they are at odds. Read this whole chapter for an example of how to read portions of text in harmony with the whole of Scripture.
See C. John Collins, Understanding the Big Picture of the Bible: A Guide to Reading the Bible Well (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 4-5.