# Questions About Biblical Theology



## KMK (Mar 31, 2008)

1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?

2. How 'new' is BT? (Did it really originate with Vos?)

3. What is the future of BT?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 31, 2008)

1. Love it, as long as it remains influencable by the other disciplines.

2. BT is at least as old as Gabler (18th century). I would argue that the Bible itself has a biblical theology. Certainly the Reformers practiced a seed form of it. 

3. Destruction, if it doesn't realize that ST and CH have to bound it.


----------



## KMK (Mar 31, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> 1. Love it, as long as it remains influencable by the other disciplines.
> 
> 2. BT is at least as old as Gabler (18th century). I would argue that the Bible itself has a biblical theology. Certainly the Reformers practiced a seed form of it.
> 
> 3. Destruction, if it doesn't realize that ST and CH have to bound it.



ST = Systematic Theology
CH = ?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 31, 2008)

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Love it, as long as it remains influencable by the other disciplines.
> ...



Church History?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 31, 2008)

Donald Hagner defines biblical theology as 


> that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology. Biblical theology has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought forms. It is the obvious intent of the Bible to tell a story about God and his acts in history for humanity’s salvation." (From introduction to _A Theology of the New Testament_ by George E. Ladd, Revised 1993, p. 20).



So, rather than tracing certain subjects through the Scriptures and then summarizing the teaching (as in systematic theology), biblical theology takes a canonical approach to the matter. While recognizing the theological unity and coherence of the canon, biblical theology looks at the theological contributions of the individual books and authors. It is a study of the nature, substance, and the content of the theology found in the Bible.

Also, it seems to me that biblical theology informs the idea of "Progressive revelation" -- i.e. truth progressively revealed in Scripture which supports, expands, and stands upon prior revelations of God's truth, culminating in Christ.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 31, 2008)

KMK said:


> 1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?
> 
> 2. How 'new' is BT? (Did it really originate with Vos?)
> 
> 3. What is the future of BT?



Biblical theology is a useful theological discipline. I agree that the Bible itself teaches us biblical theology. Vos did not originate it. It rose "under an evil star" of liberals in the 18th century. However, Vos' contibution is showing us a consistently reformed and supernatural approach. 

His address upon acceptance of the new chair in biblical theology is absolute must reading on the subject. http://www.biblicaltheology.org/ibt.pdf


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 31, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



Correct.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 31, 2008)

I like it but I also worry that it is often used as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories.


----------



## KMK (Mar 31, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I like it but I also worry that it is often used as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories.



Can you provide some examples?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 31, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I like it but I also worry that it is often used as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories.



I think I would phrase that just a tad differently: I like it but I also worry that it is often abused as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories. If you read Vos, for instance, you will see that biblical theology is used to re-affirm the standard ST categories.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 31, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I like it but I also worry that it is often *abused* as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories.



Indeed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2008)

KMK said:


> 1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?



My favorite of the disciplines.



> 2. How 'new' is BT? (Did it really originate with Vos?)


I would say it is discernible in Irenaeus and Athanasius.



> 3. What is the future of BT?



I have no problem in giving priority to BT over ST (and I have read most of the standard ST, including Calvin almost 3 times).

But I would say it should be aware of its philosophical presuppositions.


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> 1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?
> 
> 2. How 'new' is BT? (Did it really originate with Vos?)
> 
> 3. What is the future of BT?





greenbaggins said:


> 1. Love it, as long as it remains influencable by the other disciplines.
> 
> 2. BT is at least as old as Gabler (18th century). I would argue that the Bible itself has a biblical theology. Certainly the Reformers practiced a seed form of it.
> 
> 3. *Destruction, if it doesn't realize that ST and CH have to bound it.*



I am currently reading both Ladd and Ridderbos and loving it! I really enjoy the BT aspects of both. Therefore, I would like to explore a little more about what Rev Keister means by his statement.

Is BT in danger of 'destruction' if it 'get's too big for it's britches' by coming to conclusions that don't fit with ST and CH? Can someone give me an example of BT that has refused to be bound by ST and/or CH?

ANd what are the 'philosophical presuppositions' of BT?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?
> ...



Sure, what I mean is that BT will cease to be a relevant discipline if it does not hold itself in check by means of ST and Church History. That is the way that many practitioners of the discipline are headed, however. I can't even count the number of times I've seen this in a commentary: "this text has been (ab)used for this ST idea over here, but that's ST, and WE'RE in BT, so we don't have to deal with that question." Do I think that ST has abused exegesis? Sure, it happens. A WHOLE lot less than modern exegetes tend to think. All of this is the result of the Endarkenment fragmentation of knowledge, which means that these disciplines tend to view each other with a deep-seated suspicion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> Is BT in danger of 'destruction' if it 'get's too big for it's britches' by coming to conclusions that don't fit with ST and CH? Can someone give me an example of BT that has refused to be bound by ST and/or CH?
> 
> ANd what are the 'philosophical presuppositions' of BT?



Sometimes explanations of BT make it sound as if it is just a matter of being diachronic rather than synchronic in one's handling of the Bible. Let the text speak for itself rather than imposing alien philosophical templates onto it, and so forth. However, once you get into it, many BT proponents (even in evangelical seminaries) act as if BT and ST are oppositional to each other. Some of the exegetes roll their eyes and condescending speak as if the ST deptartment is just off in the philosophical clouds while they are the only ones who treat the text with integrity.

The irony is that much that passes for BT today amounts to a reading of the Bible through post-modern lenses. Look at some of the more liberal journals sometime and check out the tortured "exegesis" of passages made to serve the purposes of modern revisionisms (whether feminist, or marxist, or something else). If BT is built upon exegesis, then it matters supremely what presuppositions govern the exegetical enterprise. Reader response hermeneutics run amuck in the interpretation of texts can only lead to a very peculiar BT in the end. 

I prefer Reformational systematics built upon a much more faithful reading of the text (in my opinion) to the tendentious results of much contemporary exegesis built upon alien political and sociological theories. For example, one of the high prestige NT scholars in my (now former) mainline denomination approached the parable of the talents with a marxist template.* Employing the tools of sociological analysis now so popular in biblical studies, he concluded that the hero of the parable was the man who burried the talent in the ground!!! 



> By digging a hole and burying the aristocrat's talent in the ground he has taken it out of circulation. It cannot be used to dispossess more peasants from their lands through its dispersion in the form of usurious loans . . . He describes the master for what he is and acknowledges his fear of his power. The whistle-blower is no fool. He realizes that he will pay a price, but he has decided to accept the cost rather than continue to pursue his exploitative path.



The man traditional exegesis blames as the goat of the story emerges as an ancient whistle-blower who showed the wicked landowner for the unjust oppressor that he was. By refusing to be co-opted into the master's exploitation of the workers, he heroically stood for the people and against the rich. That is the "real" meaning of the parable! Yikes! This fellow has been a professor at an ABC school in CA, was dean of another one in NY, and now teaches in a third one in MA. 

When this kind of nonsense animates the exegetical program, how can you expect the BT that grows out of it to be anything but misguided?

* *Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed*, William R. Herzog II (Westminster/John Knox, 1994), pp. 150-168. Bill was one of my youth pastors for a time during my 9th grade year. He is also one of the contributors to the IVP *Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels*. Bill's treatment of the parables depends heavily upon Paulo Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed, a marxist way of viewing society.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2008)

Ken,

Did I answer your question or merely run off at ther mouth again? I remember reading an article by a feminist OT scholar that turned the meaning of some of the OT passages on their heads with a methodology driven by "feminist hermeneutics." Insofar as BT grows out of the organization of the fruits of exegetical efforts, how can you expect it to do anything but overturn traditional systematics as modern exegetes move further and further away from an idea that meaning inheres in the authorial intention?


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Ken,
> 
> Did I answer your question or merely run off at ther mouth again? I remember reading an article by a feminist OT scholar that turned the meaning of some of the OT passages on their heads with a methodology driven by "feminist hermeneutics." Insofar as BT grows out of the organization of the fruits of exegetical efforts, how can you expect it to do anything but overturn traditional systematics as modern exegetes move further and further away from an idea that meaning inheres in the authorial intention?



You answered my question when you pointed out...




DMcFadden said:


> If BT is built upon exegesis, then it matters supremely what presuppositions govern the exegetical enterprise.



In other words,, BT must start with solid ST as its presupposition or no telling what the text can be made to say. Am I on the right track?


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2008)

I think this paragaph from the work of Vos I cited above gets to what you are asking...

_Fourthly, Biblical Theology is of the greatest importance and value for the study of Systematic Theology. It were useless to deny that it has been often cultivated in a spirit more or less hostile to the work in which Systematic Theology is engaged. The very name Biblical Theology is frequently vaunted so as to imply a protest against the alleged un-Biblical character of dogmatics. I desire to state most emphatically here, that there is nothing in the nature and aims of Biblical Theology to justify such an implication. For anything pretending to supplant Dogmatics there is no place in the circle of Christian Theology. All attempts to show that the doctrines developed and formulated by the Church have no real foundation in the Bible, stand themselves without the pale of Theology, inasmuch as they imply that Christianity is a purely natural phenomenon, and that the Church has now for nineteen centuries been chasing her own shadow. Dogmatic Theology is, when rightly cultivated, as truly a Biblical and as truly an inductive science as its younger sister. And the latter needs a constructive principle for arranging her facts as well as the former. The only difference is, that in the one case this constructive principle is systematic and logical, whereas in the other case it is purely historical. In other words, Systematic Theology endeavors to construct a circle, Biblical Theology seeks to reproduce a line. I do not mean by the use of this figure, that within Biblical Theology there is no grouping of facts at all. The line of which I speak does not represent a monotonous recital of revelation, and does not resemble a string, even though it be conceived of as a string of pearls. The line of revelation is like the stem of those trees that grow in rings. Each successive ring has grown out of the preceding one. But out of the sap and vigor that is in this stem there springs a crown with branches and leaves and flowers and fruit. Such is the true relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology. Dogmatics is the crown which grows out of all the work that Biblical Theology can accomplish. And taught in this spirit of Christian willingness to serve, our science cannot fail to benefit Systematic Theology in more than one respect. It will proclaim the fact, too often forgotten and denied in our days, that true religion cannot dispense with a solid basis of objective knowledge of the truth. There is no better means of silencing the supercilious cant that right believing is of small importance in the matter of religion, than by showing what infinite care our Father in heaven has taken to reveal unto us, in the utmost perfection, the knowledge of what He is and does for our salvation. *Biblical Theology will also demonstrate that the fundamental doctrines of our faith do not rest, as many would fain believe, on an arbitrary exposition of some isolated proof-texts. It will not so much prove these doctrines, as it will do what is far better than proof---make them grow out organically before our eyes from the stem of revelation. Finally, it will contribute to keep Systematic Theology in living contact with that soil of divine realities from which it must draw all its strength and power to develop beyond what it has already attained.*_


----------



## danmpem (Apr 18, 2008)

Forgive me, but I'm confused as to what is being asked here. In the first post, there is a question about Biblical theology, but....isn't that what we want our theology to be, as Christians, and not those of heretics?


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Forgive me, but I'm confused as to what is being asked here. In the first post, there is a question about Biblical theology, but....isn't that what we want our theology to be, as Christians, and not those of heretics?



The discussion is about biblical theology as a particular manner of biblical studies like systematic theology etc. It is not about the difference between biblical and *un*biblical theology. The name can be confusing in that way. Consider these quotes from Vos for a clearer definition...

_In general, then, Biblical Theology is that part of Exegetical Theology which deals with the revelation of God. It makes use of all the results that have been obtained by all the preceding studies in this department. Still, we must endeavor to determine more precisely in what sense this general definition is to be understood. For it might be said of Systematic Theology, nay of the whole of Theology, with equal truth, that it deals with supernatural revelation. The specific character of Biblical Theology lies in this, that it discusses both the form and contents of revelation from the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself. In other words, it deals with revelation in the active sense, as an act of God, and tries to understand and trace and describe this act, so far as this is possible to man and does not elude our finite observation. In Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work. In Systematic Theology these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles. Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself._

and 

_We may now perhaps attempt to frame a complete definition of our science. The preceding remarks have shown that the divine work of revelation did not proceed contrary to all law, but after a well-defined organic principle. Wherever there is a group of facts sufficiently distinct from their environment, and determined by some law of orderly sequence, we are justified in making these facts the object of scientific discussion. Far from there being in the conception of Biblical Theology anything at variance with the idea of Theology as based on the revealed knowledge of God, we have found that the latter even directly postulates the former. Biblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity._


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

Thanks for that Rev King. I am working through the speech by Vos that you cited but have not finished it yet.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> Thanks for that Rev King. I am working through the speech by Vos that you cited but have not finished it yet.



Great! Glad to hear it. In my opinion, Vos provides some starting presuppositions and definitions in that article that are indespensable in the bibilcal-theological enterprise. Enjoy!


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> I am currently reading both Ladd and Ridderbos and loving it!



It is important to be aware that modern biblical theology has been influenced by the salvation history school of Cullmann. Ridderbos had many good things to say, but there is no doubt that the ordo salutis is pushed to the background and the historia salutis becomes all pervasive in his biblical theology. The result is a disinterest in the subjective application of redemption along the same lines as Barthian soteriology.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Forgive me, but I'm confused as to what is being asked here. In the first post, there is a question about Biblical theology, but....isn't that what we want our theology to be, as Christians, and not those of heretics?



Dan,

Here is how Wayne Grudem defines the terms:



> Systematic theology, as we have defined it, also differs from Old Testament theology, New Testament theology and biblical theology. These three disciplines organize their topics historically and in the order the topics are presented in the Bible. Therefore, in Old Testament theology, one might ask, “What does Deuteronomy teach about prayer?” or “What do the Psalms teach about prayer?” or “What does Isaiah teach about prayer?” or even, “What does the whole Old Testament teach about prayer and how is that teaching developed over the history of the Old Testament?” In New Testament theology one might ask, “What does John’s gospel teach about prayer?” or “What does Paul teach about prayer?” or even “What does the New Testament teach about prayer and what is the historical development of that teaching as it progresses through the New Testament?”
> 
> “Biblical theology” has a technical meaning in theological studies. It is the larger category that contains both Old Testament theology and New Testament theology as we have defined them above. Biblical theology gives special attention to the teachings of individual authors and sections of Scripture, and to the place of each teaching in the historical development of Scripture. So one might ask, “What is the historical development of the teaching about prayer as it is seen throughout the history of the Old Testament and then of the New Testament?” Of course, this question comes very close to the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us today about prayer?” (which would be systematic theology by our definition). It then becomes evident that the boundary lines between these various disciplines often overlap at the edges, and parts of one study blend into the next. Yet there is still a difference, for biblical theology traces the historical development of a doctrine and the way in which one’s place at some point in that historical development affects one’s understanding and application of that particular doctrine. Biblical theology also focuses on the understanding of each doctrine that the biblical authors and their original hearers or readers possessed.
> 
> ...



Realize that critics have faulted Grudem for doing sys theo by concordance. They allege that he looks up all the verses on a topic in the Bible, organizes them appropriately, and pronounces the result systematic theology. But even granting this, the discipline of ST takes into account the development of doctrine since the closing of the canon whereas biblical theology supposedly confines itself to the development of doctrine within the canon.


----------



## natewood3 (Apr 18, 2008)

1. What are your opinions on the field of Biblical Theology?

I have been introduced to this discipline in the last year or so. I have found it extremely helpful for seeing how the Bible fits together. Rather than having a bunch of unrelated theological concepts in my mind, BT has helped me fit those concepts and ideas together and see where they fit into God's plan of redemption. I would say that ST is grounded in BT. BT, as I see it, tries to follow the storyline of the Bible, letting the canon form the categories of thought. I think ST can sometimes either impose or leave out concepts that the biblical text stresses. I love ST, but I have grown to love BT as well.

2. How 'new' is BT? (Did it really originate with Vos?) 

I think someone mentioned that Gabler's famous address in 1787 in a sense marks the beginning of BT as we know it. As I have understood it, Gabler thought that many were leaving behind the biblical text for systematic categories and imposing their own preconceived systems upon the text. Gabler thought that BT would resolve this and produce more widespread agreement. Now there is just as much debate in the discipline of BT as there in ST, so his dream didn't quite come true. The problem soon became that many proponents of BT were historical-critical scholars who found contradictions in the text, so that the discpline of BT became untenable. There are conclicting theologies of the NT, so there is need to do NT theology, let alone BT. The result was that BT gave way to the history of religions school, so that BT was replaced with an approach that simply described the content and beliefs of the early Christians. I suppose this approach is best exemplified by people such as Wrede and recently Heikki Raisanen. As far as the history of BT, Carson's introductory articles in the _New Dictionary of Bible Theology_ and the first 100 pages of Scobie's _The Ways of Our God_ both give good summaries of the history of BT.

3. What is the future of BT? 

From what I see, I have noticed a increasing interest in BT from students at SBTS. I think that is the result of people like Goldsworthy and Carson. Among those who believe the canon is unified, it doesn't seem like the interest in BT would be ceasing anytime soon. I could be totally wrong about that tough...

I am taking a class in Issues in Biblical and Systematic Theology this summer, so I am sure he might answer this question...


----------



## ADKing (Apr 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently reading both Ladd and Ridderbos and loving it!
> ...



This is perhaps also manifest in his poor treatment of the doctrine of election. Not one of his more shining moments.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 19, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Dan,
> 
> Here is how Wayne Grudem defines the terms:





ADKing said:


> The discussion is about biblical theology as a particular manner of biblical studies like systematic theology etc. It is not about the difference between biblical and *un*biblical theology. The name can be confusing in that way. Consider these quotes from Vos for a clearer definition...



Thanks!


----------



## danmpem (Apr 19, 2008)

Okay, I'm with you all now. Yes, paying attention, focused. 



greenbaggins said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > I like it but I also worry that it is often used as a hammer to knock away standard theological categories.
> ...



Isn't this part of the job of good, expository preaching on Sunday mornings? To have the Biblical theology as it comes out of the verse by verse study, but also affirming the S.T. side of things?

I guess I'm a little confused as to how someone could say Vos, or whoever else, just came up with B.T.. Isn't good S.T. just the systematizing of B.T., that which the theologian already has? And if the theologian already has B.T., from nothing else than reading his Bible and really knowing it in the way that has been described above in this thread, then isn't that what Augustine had when he systematized his theology? And Ignatius?

(By the way, I really have no idea what I'm talking about; these are just questions. There are plenty of people here who probably know exactly why it was Vos who did in fact invent B.T. and are just waiting for me to get with the program here.)


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 19, 2008)

Dan,

This is pretty reductionistic, but think about it as an historical vs. a thematic approach. The Biblical Theology movement sought to interpret the text against the progressive nature of revelation. Systematic Theology tended to build its doctrinal houses without much attention to whether the nails came out of the Genesis barrel or the Romans barrel.

In theory the diachronic approach of BT should yield a more nuanced and solid foundation on which to construct the ST edifice. However, it is a very short step from this quest for a unity of overarching themes to Jimmy Dunn's "discovery" of various competing (and even contradictory) "theologies" in the NT. The BT theology movement suffered withering criticism, culminating in Child's critique.



> The third development was the rise of the biblical theology movement. Influenced in part by Barth and in part by Hofmann’s work in the nineteenth century, hungry to be theologically and pastorally relevant in a world rent by two world wars, the Great Depression and the cold war, exponents of the movement developed various emphases in Britain and the continent during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and in America during the 1940s and 1950s. Perhaps the movement’s most influential theologian was O. Cullmann, whose insistence on salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) attempted not only to bring together two components that had been flying apart in the disputes over biblical theology at the turn of the century but who wrote in a style calculated to be edifying. His insistence that salvation history is the theme that unites both Testaments has not gained wide acceptance even though only a few would deny that he has rightly emphasized one important unifying theme. In the English-speaking world A. Richardson’s more popular writings, culminating in his own NT theology (1958), exerted wide influence. But the biblical theology movement had many facets. R. Morgan (ABD 6:479) includes within its scope G. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1933–74; ET 1964–74), which was, after all, dedicated to Schlatter.
> 
> But the biblical theology movement as such could not last. In the hands of some of its exponents, the locus of revelation was in God’s mighty acts, but the connection these acts enjoyed with the biblical text was less than clear. In the hands of others, entire theological structures were being made to depend on word studies of doubtful linguistic probity (a criticism leveled by J. Barr). Heilsgeschichte underwent several semantic metamorphoses. Hesitations about the movement climaxed in B. Childs’s critique (1970).
> 
> Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000, c1997). *Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments *(electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.



I would hope that my preaching is both true to the actual text under consideration and connected to the larger themes of the Word of God and sensitive to the Christocentric purpose of it all. So, yes, you need both a solid BT and ST. BT offers me a sensitivity to how my text fits in with the record of God's revelation over many centuries. ST allows me to see my particular text within a larger framework of themes and in terms of how the church has handled this issue over the centuries.


----------

