19
Nov
2008

Jesus, A Systematic Theologian?

/
/
5
/
19 Nov 2008
Mike Gilbart-Smith, Pastor to students at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C., has a very useful article over at The Theologian in which he argues that Jesus was the prototypical Systematic Theologian . He writes:
Scripture is often used in Scripture in a systematic manner, making logical deductions in order to observe the full implications of what the bible teaches elsewhere.

Look again at Mark 12:24-27. Jesus rebukes the Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures, yet what he criticises is a part of their Systematic Theology: they wrongly deny the resurrection. He then reads Exodus 3:6 in the light of the systematic belief that God is the God of the living, to reach the conclusion that the Pentateuch affirms the resurrection.

The statement ‘He is not the God of the dead but the God of the living’, is particularly pertinent to our discussion. Not a single verse in the Old Testament makes this assertion explicitly, yet when we read of God’s action in the Old Testament as a whole, that he is the God of the living is clear. Jesus is not giving new revelation when he says this. He is deducing it from a systematic reading of the Old Testament. Neither is Jesus alone a legitimate Systematician, for if he were, he would not rebuke the Saducees for wrong Systematics. They too were expected to make such logical connections from Scripture. If Jesus expected it of the Saducees, then how much more will he expect it of his redeemed people?

This is an extremely insightful point. Jesus does not just quote Scripture, He explains it in light of the collective content of biblical revelation. Of course, Gilbart-Smith implies that the Saducees also did Systematic Theology. In fact, I would argue that everyone does Systematic Theology. I remember hearing Ligon Duncan say once, “If someone tells you they don’t have a systematic theology, ‘Watch out,’ they’re about to slide it under your door.” We all do systematics. The question is, “Do we do Systematic Theology the way Christ did?”

HT: Les Prouty

About Post Author

Nick Batzig is the senior pastor of Church Creek PCA in Charleston, SC and an associate editor for Ligonier Ministries. Prior to serving at Church Creek, Nick was a pastor at Wayside PCA on Signal Mountain, TN. Formerly, Nick served as the founding pastor of New Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Richmond Hill, GA and as the editor of Reformation21 and the Christward Collective--sites of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He frequently writes for Tabletalk Magazine, Reformation 21, He Reads Truth, and the Christward Collective. Nick was also the host of East of Eden, a podcast devoted to the Biblical and Systematic Theology of Jonathan Edwards. You can friend him on Facebook here and follow him on Twitter @nick_batzig

5 Responses

  3. Foolish Tar Heel
    Reply

    I remain skeptical of the whole “everyone has a Systematic Theology” discourse in Reformed circles, especially because of the functions it frequently has. Do not get me wrong, I fully understand that everyone has various assumptions and often un-realized “influences” that constitute the matrix of their actions (including thoughts/theology and reading practices). But, again, understanding this in terms of “everyone has a Systematic Theology” fails to arrive at some of the more decisive issues at play, especially in our conflicts in the Reformed world now.

    As I tried to explain, quickly, on Greenbaggins, you have to go further than this “everyone has a systematic theology.” Rather, everyone has a contingent social-location with habituated/inherited social-practices that form the matrix of their actions (again, including thoughts and reading practices…and yes, their ‘Systematic Theology’). Insisting on this matters because it introduces the importance of social-dynamics, cultural-transmission, and power-legitimating strategies into the discussion of ‘Systematic Theology’ and reading practices in our circles. This immediately drags the ST discussion down into the social and hierarchical (constructed) realities of our Reformed world.

    Furthermore, this more holistic social approach shows the fallacy of assuming the dominating importance of some abstract discursive entity (Systematic Theology) over all other areas. By keeping the various “influences” on our reading practices and church life, for example, locked up in the intellectualist and doxic (belief) realm of ST, one allows the continued neo-Gnostic and overt-intellectualist orientation of Reformed folk to go unchallenged. It is as though the only things that really matter for life, actions (including reading practices), ecclesial life, etc., are abstract discursive mental-states like “beliefs” and “doctrines.” Seriously, what else is this (socially speaking) than blatantly stacking the deck such that those who control the ST-intellectual field in the Reformed world continue to be the most important and authoritative figures?! Thus this discourse of “everyone has a Systematic Theology” most often smacks of a power legitimization strategy.

    Whatever it is, the idea that abstract mental states (ie., beliefs, doctrines, etc.) are what really matter for defining practices and living has been thoroughly trashed by various psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and some philosophers. To the extent such mental states do influence actions, and they do in certain qualified ways, you must keep in mind all the social, cultural, and power-legitimating issues still bound up with such mental actions.

    In some situations discussing these issues in terms of “everyone has a Systematic Theology” may be helpful. Again, however, the issue goes much deeper than that. Recognizing this also disallows the common (unstated) assumption that Systematic Theology (as understood by many of the Reformed gate-keepers) is just a given and thus necessary reality with decisive importance for all relevant areas (such as Biblical studies). I am not necessarily questioning it here, but pointing up that it should be possible to question its legitimacy, at least in its common modernist manifestations.

    If by “everyone has a Systematic Theology” you do mean to include all the social issues I raise, please let me know. If this is the case, however, I would love to see more discussion of the social and power-legitimating functions of our theological discourse…

    Thanks for the post.

  4. Nicholas T. Batzig
    Reply

    Steven,

    I think you have raised the only suitable argument against what has been asserted. The issue does not necessarily depend on social factors or environment, so much as it depends on ones understanding of the canon and hermeneutics. As you and I have discussed before, it involves ones understanding of the principles of Scripture being its own interpreter. Even if one is to reject this principle, he or she still systematizes in the way you have suggested in the comment above. We all think in categories. I do not know what “psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and…philosophers” have trashed the idea of (what you call) abstract mental states (which I call categorizing truth), but even in their trashing they are systematizing the world around them.

    I know that we have differences as to how we are to appraoch biblical studies, but I do think the quotation in this post was quite convincing as to the fact that everyone systematizes what they believe to be truth. Jesus simply does it perfectly. I do not suggest that any one Reformed theologian has done so.

  5. Pablo Martinez
    Reply

    Thanks for the article it was very useful personally for practical seminary and ministry life. Great insights for those in our churches who care little or not at all about doctrine and organized theology.

Leave a Reply