There is no consensus on the definition of, or preferable
method for, biblical theology. This article explores the variety of
ways biblical theology has been understood and practiced.
Biblical
theology has been defined in various ways: (1) theology
based upon Scripture (or theology derived primarily from a study of
Scripture), as opposed to theology based upon confessional statements
or philosophy; (2) theology in harmony with Scripture;
(3) theology that is descriptive of the Bible’s contents;
(4) a study of the theology found in the Bible; (5) the
study of the main themes of the Bible; (6) the formulation
of the theology of the entire Bible (in distinction from the theology
of the OT, the theology of the NT, or the theology of the various
books of the Bible, such as the theology of Isaiah or of Matthew);
and (7) the ways the Bible has been studied throughout the
history of the church.
One
of the major weaknesses with these definitions is that they can
function primarily as a way of distinguishing those theologies that
are preferred from those that are dismissed. Although they may differ
from one another, every Christian theologian formulates theology in
reference to the Bible. Biblical theologies have a direct correlation
to both the text of Scripture and the ways in which the authors of
Scripture thought.
Biblical
Theology as a Recent Discipline
Biblical
theology is a relatively recent discipline. There are two reasons for
this. First, the term “biblical theology” does not seem
to have been used prior to the seventeenth century. Second, the focus
on the historical progression of biblical themes did not become a
significant part of biblical studies until the eighteenth century.
This historical focus characterizes most biblical theologies of the
last two centuries.
In
his 1787 lecture at the University of Altdorf, Johann Philipp Gabler
made a distinction between biblical theology (a historical
discipline) and dogmatic theology (a didactic or instructive
discipline that is usually called “systematic theology”
in our own time). Prior to Gabler, biblical scholars engaged in what
was sometimes called “exegetical theology,” but this
usually was a discipline subordinate to systematic theology rather
than a discipline in its own right. It involved showing the
relationship between biblical texts and the various doctrines of
systematic theology.
Influential
writers of the early church such as Irenaeus and Marcion wrestled
with issues that would become a significant concern of later biblical
theologians, such as the relationship between the Testaments and the
Christian’s use of the Mosaic law, but they lacked the
historical focus in the study of Scripture that would characterize
modern biblical scholarship.
The
Biblical Theology Movement
Biblical
theology as a discipline should be distinguished from the biblical
theology movement, a primarily neoorthodox mid-twentieth-century
movement in biblical studies that grew out of the controversy between
fundamentalism and modernism in America. Neoorthodoxy, as expressed
by Karl Barth, was characterized by the idea that the Bible itself is
not the word of God but rather is a record of revelation and a
witness to the word of God. Through the Scripture we encounter the
divine Word in Christ. Biblical scholars of this movement affirmed
the value of historical criticism (opposing a literalistic
interpretation of the Bible) and at the same time acknowledged
the need for a new direction that would affirm the unity of the
gospel and make the results of historical criticism more useful for
the church.
Defining
Theology
Some
explanations of biblical theology begin with a definition of
theology. This is not a simple task, for there are many different
ways that theology has been conceptualized. When Christians speak of
theology, they usually are referring to either (1) the study of
God (as revealed in Scripture and/or history), (2) the study of
Scripture (the teaching that arises from the canonical books), or
(3) the study of what the church (or a branch of the church)
believes and teaches.
One’s
understanding of theology is linked with the understanding of
revelation. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily
through Scripture will seek to develop a theology derived from
Scripture. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily
through his actions in history (such as the exodus from Egypt or the
resurrection of Jesus Christ) will seek to develop a theology that
comes out of understanding those events (keeping in mind that
Scripture is often the primary witness to these actions). Those who
view theology as a study of what the church believes will combine a
study of Scripture and history with a careful analysis of various
expressions of theology within a faith community. In spite of varying
definitions of theology, with very few exceptions Christian
theologians are concerned with working out the implications of
the Christian Scriptures (the books of both Testaments) for the
life of the church, as well as social analysis and critique.
Biblical
Theology and Other Types of Theology
Systematic
theology.
Biblical
theology often is defined in distinction from systematic theology.
There are a number of ways that students of Scripture have
differentiated biblical theology from systematic theology.
Gabler
viewed biblical theology as a historical, descriptive discipline,
distinct from systematic theology, which is an instructive,
prescriptive discipline. From his perspective, biblical theology
focuses on what biblical authors said about sacred matters, while
systematic theology reveals what current theologians think about
sacred matters in light of their own time and church background. This
perspective forced recognition of the difference between the teaching
of the biblical writers and the systematic theology professed in
various churches.
Some
later biblical theologians considered biblical theology to be a
historical discipline in contrast to systematic theology, which is a
logical discipline (using laws of logic to organize and synthesize
theology).
A
different emphasis is found when biblical theology is viewed as a
descriptive task in contrast to systematic theology, which is
prescriptive in nature. A distinction has often been made between
systematic theology, viewed as a prescriptive task (explaining what
the Scripture “means” in the time and situation of
contemporary believers), as distinct from biblical theology, which is
a study of what the Scripture “meant” at its time of
writing.
Another
way to contrast the two is to speak of biblical theology as a
discipline that studies the Bible diachronically (i.e., with an
emphasis on what is revealed throughout various time periods), while
systematic theology is a discipline that studies the Bible
synchronically (with the goal of producing a unified system by
focusing on what the Scripture as a whole teaches). Biblical theology
as a diachronic and sequential study has also been contrasted with
systematic theology viewed as a logical arrangement of what is
observed sequentially in Scripture.
In
summary, those distinguishing biblical theology from systematic
theology, with various nuances and emphases, describe biblical
theology as a historical, descriptive, diachronic, and sequential
discipline that focuses on what the Scripture “meant” at
its time of writing, in contrast to systematic theology, which is
didactic, logical, prescriptive, and synchronic, explaining what the
Scripture “means” to contemporary readers.
The
results of one’s biblical theology can be used to formulate
systematic theology in light of the cultural and historical context
of the contemporary theologian. Systematic theologians do this in a
variety of ways. Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally placed
Scripture alongside the tradition of the church in this task, while
Protestants value Scripture above tradition when constructing
theology. Among Protestants, some interpret Scripture in light of
tradition, reason, and experience, while others emphasize the role of
the Spirit in helping believers understand the word of God.
Historical
theology.
Biblical
theology is often viewed as a discipline that follows the task of
biblical exegesis and precedes historical theology, which itself
precedes systematic theology.
Old
Testament / New Testament theology.
OT
theology and NT theology can be viewed as two branches of biblical
theology or as intermediate steps between exegesis and biblical
theology. Other theological disciplines sometimes considered to be
subsequent to systematic theology include ethical theology,
homiletical theology, and pastoral theology.
Biblical
Theology and Exegesis
Those
focusing on biblical theology as a diachronic study often speak of
biblical theology as a study of the progression and development of
significant themes throughout Scripture, or throughout the progress
of revelation. From this perspective, biblical theologians take the
work done by biblical exegetes in their careful study of Scripture
and observe themes that appear with regularity. When biblical
theology is viewed in this way, it is common to see it as the study
of the theology found within each book of the Bible and a comparison,
analysis, and compilation of these theologies.
The
work of biblical theologians is based upon, and is an extension of,
the work done by biblical exegetes. The biblical exegete interprets
and explains a passage of Scripture in light of linguistics,
semantics (often including philological study), grammar, syntax,
textual criticism, literary structure (of both the passage itself and
the book within which the passage is found), compositional and
rhetorical strategies of the author (including chiasm, plot, theme
and character development, and parallelism), genre, historical and
sociological background of the text, and geographical setting.
There
is always fluidity in the relationship between biblical exegesis and
biblical theology, for while the results of biblical exegesis inform
biblical theology, the observations of biblical theologians assist
biblical exegetes in their understanding of each biblical book as a
whole, as well as the relationships between smaller units of
Scripture within the book in which they are found. As a result, there
is a circular (or spiral) interaction between biblical exegesis and
biblical theology. An understanding of each part of Scripture informs
one’s formulation of biblical theology, while an understanding
of biblical theology increases one’s understanding of each
part. Ultimately, every biblical passage informs the work done by the
biblical theologian, while each text of Scripture is understood in a
clearer manner by the exegete as the unity and diversity within the
canon as a whole is seen with greater clarity.
Methods
of Biblical Theology
There
are a variety of ways in which biblical theology has been practiced
and a number of ways in which these methodologies have been
classified. Differences in the way the Bible is understood have
resulted in various kinds of biblical theologies. For example, while
some have focused on the final form of the biblical text, others have
focused on the reconstruction of the biblical text (in light of
historical critical methods), and still others have focused on the
study of events referred to in the biblical text as reconstructed in
light of tradition criticism or historical criticism.
Classifications
of the various methods for biblical theology (with some overlap
between the categories) include (1) systematic, (2) diachronic,
(3) central theme, (4) confessional, (5) descriptive,
(6) tradition-history, (7) salvation-historical,
(8) christological, (9) promise-fulfillment,
(10) allegorical, (11) typological, (12) canonical,
(13) literary, (14) cultural-linguistic, and
(15) sociological. The first three of these methods for biblical
theology will be considered here in greater detail.
The
systematic (or dogmatic) method organizes biblical theology in light
of the structures used by systematic theology, such as the three
themes of God, humanity, and salvation. This synchronic approach
characterized the earliest biblical theologies. The greatest weakness
in this method is that it often leads to imposing on the text of
Scripture a framework that is incongruous with the content and
teaching of Scripture. This unbalanced distortion leads to
overemphasizing some ideas of the biblical writers and
underemphasizing others.
The
diachronic (or historic) method structures biblical theology in terms
of the historic progression of themes or ideas communicated by the
writers of Scripture. It focuses on the way God’s revelation
unfolds throughout the canon, with a concern for the historic time
periods of revelation. An example of this approach is the
salvation-history method, which focuses on the progress and history
of redemption. A diachronic study of the Bible is difficult because
there is no consensus concerning the time or sequence of writing for
most of the books of the OT. For example, some believe that the
Mosaic law (as found in the Pentateuch) preceded the OT prophets,
while others are convinced that the law was largely written as a
response to the teachings of the prophets of Judah and Israel.
The
central theme (or cross-section) method selects a unifying theme that
is prominent in Scripture and observes how this theme is addressed
throughout the historic progression of Scripture. Significant themes
that can be traced throughout Scripture and that have been suggested
as a center of biblical theology (a way of providing unity to the
study of Scripture) include (1) God’s covenant(s) with his
people, (2) the relationship between God and his people, (3) the
history of redemption or salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), (4) the
kingdom or reign of God, (5) promise and fulfillment,
(6) reconciliation, (7) the presence of God, (8) the
love and mercy of God, and (9) the providence of God. Many have
rejected the possibility of finding a center or dominant theme around
which each part of Scripture can be organized, and they reject
approaches that force a particular theme upon texts that resist such
a simplified analysis and classification.
Questions
for Biblical Theologians
A
number of questions have arisen as biblical exegetes have attempted
to formulate biblical theology.
1.
Is biblical theology a theological endeavor?
This
question seems to arise when the biblical text is viewed as an object
of study rather than as God’s self-revelation to humanity.
Biblical theology has often been understood as the discipline that
focuses on what a text meant, as distinct from systematic theology,
which focuses on what a text means. Emphasizing the descriptive
aspect of biblical theology at the expense of its normative role in
the community of faith can lead to viewing Scripture as an object of
study. If Scripture is viewed as the living word that is understood
only by those with a desire to hear and obey the voice of God, a
sharp distinction between what the text meant and what it means will
be avoided. Those who reject the possibility of a merely cognitive
understanding of Scripture will reject the idea of orthodoxy apart
from orthopraxis and affirm that attempts at exegetical understanding
(what the text meant) are not only incomplete and deficient but also
distorted without obedience to God (which is, at the very least, part
of what the Scripture means today). Those affirming biblical theology
as a theological discipline will emphasize the theological nature of
Christian Scripture as it addresses issues of the character and
nature of God and the implications of this for human morality.
2.
How does one find unity from biblical books that speak with diverse
voices? Is there thematic unity? Would biblical theology better be
replaced by biblical theologies derived from various portions of
Scripture?
As
biblical theology came to be understood as a historical discipline,
the differences between the teachings of the two Testaments were
highlighted. This has led some to reject the possibility of biblical
theology.
(a)
Some reject biblical theology because they see the differences
between the theology of the two Testaments as insurmountable and
irresolvable. They view the OT not only as pre-Christian, but also as
sub-Christian. Examples include the call of God for Israel to destroy
the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:16–18) and the
prayers of imprecation (cursing) in the psalms (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9).
Similarly, when the revelation of Jesus Christ as seen in the NT is
viewed as the climax of the progress of God’s revelation, how
does the OT retain value? Is the OT always secondary and the NT
primary?
(b)
Those from the history-of-religions school moved away from, and even
rejected the idea of, biblical theology, replacing it with a focus on
the evolutionary development of Israel’s religion in light of
the religions of Israel’s neighbors.
(c)
Some of those who have rejected biblical theology focus on the
historical-critical study of the text, often rejecting the
historicity of the events described in the text. In response, some
have defended the value of the history in the biblical narratives,
while others have pursued biblical theology without considering the
issue of the historicity of the events described in Scripture,
focusing on the theology that comes out of the final form of
Scripture.
(d)
Recent biblical interpreters have focused on the differences in the
theology of the writers of the various canonical books (e.g., the
contrast in the way Jesus is presented in the Synoptic Gospels and
John’s Gospel, or the differences in the way faith is
understood by James and Paul, or the varying perspectives on the poor
and oppressed seen in Exodus as compared with Proverbs). As a result,
the movement has been away from observing similarities and toward
highlighting these differences (thus a move away from unity).
3.
Is it possible to summarize accurately everything the Bible teaches?
Can one produce a biblical theology that values each biblical text?
It
appears that all attempts to formulate a biblical theology will, of
necessity, be selective, for it is impossible to construct a biblical
theology in which all texts are weighted equally. This being the
case, which portions of Scripture will be used? Which will be
central? Which will be ignored? How will these decisions be made?
4.
What is meant by the term “Bible”?
Different
faith communities have diverse canons of authoritative Scripture.
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have a canon that
includes what Protestants sometimes refer to as the deuterocanonical
books, which Protestants reject. Differences in the locus of study
for a biblical theology will, of course, affect the biblical theology
that is produced.