What is Biblical Theology and Why Do I Like It So Much?
This could be a snoozer for some of you, but hang with me. Some important things will be built off of it.
Biblical Theology (BT) means different things to different people. The idea has a long and honored history, going back at least to the 18th century, and at first was a way of responding to dogmatic structures that did not take into account the historical particularities of Scripture (i.e., a “prooftexting” type of dogmatics). The idea continued to evolve into the 19th century, where it became more of a descriptive historical discipline, i.e., largely devoid of any prescriptive content.
Among evangelicals especially, BT has an assumed prescriptive dimension, but the actual task of BT takes on different flavors. For instance, BT can mean exploring the theological content of individual books of the Bible as opposed to a merely descriptive exegetical exercise (such as can happen in more critical circles). For others, BT takes on a more holistic dimension in attempting to offer some coherent account of larger sections of Scripture, e.g., of the Prophets or Paul.
This last definition has some affinities with the larger tasks of Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology. Both are worthy disciplines, and, as an OT scholar myself, I am a strong advocate of having a coherent picture of the (diverse) theological landscape of the OT.
But the term “Biblical Theology” as I am using it here is different from what I have described above. My understanding of BT was shaped as an MDiv student at Westminster Theological Seminary in the late 80’s, primarily by Ray Dillard (OT) and Richard Gaffin (NT and ST), and represents the trajectory initiated in Reformed circles by Geehardus Vos.
BT is an attempt to give a coherent, narratival account of Scripture as a whole. That coherence is a function of the climactic moment in God’s redemptive work, i.e., the person and work of Christ.
To put it another way, Scripture is a story moving toward a conclusion. That movement is seen by holding in tension two dimensions of the Bible’s own theological dynamic: (1) The theological contours of the OT, which is itself fluctuating, diverse, developing, and (2) observing how the NT writers “take captive” the OT and bring it to bear on the reality of the crucified and risen Christ.
Both of these dimension are important for the Biblical Theological task, and both are also decidedly historical tasks. In my opinion, an understanding of the theological contours of the OT cannot be undertaken apart from some working knowledge of the various historical contexts of the OT. (And to be clear, I am not suggesting all Christians need to be engaged in such study to understand the heart of Scripture or the gospel!). Further, an adequate understanding of how the NT seizes the OT can only be enriched by understanding the hermeneutical world of the Second Temple period in which the NT writers wrote.
I am not implying that this is all there is to it, nor that these are “objective” tasks. Perhaps in other posts we can enter into some of the subtleties of BT. But for now I just want to lay out issues that I feel are basic to the BT task.
With this in mind, I would like to suggest a brief definition of BT. It is an attempt to offer a coherent picture of Scripture, respecting the historical particularities of any portion while also understanding that portion as a part of a grand story whose conclusion is known to us.
Maybe not the most scintillating definition, but give it a chance to set in.
O.K., so much for defining BT. Now, why do I like it so much? Several reasons
- it tells a story that I want to be a part of,
- it offers a coherence that is flexible enough to handle the diversity that invariably comes with historical particularity,
- it is what the NT teaches (as is seen by how it uses the OT),
- it reminds me of the big picture of Scripture so I don’t get lost in the details,
- it shows me that, along with the diversity, the Bible is one story,
- it focuses on Christ, who is the center of our faith,
- it challenges attempts to control Scripture through prooftexting or arid dogmatics,
and, for contemporary Christianity, it provides a grand narrative that, in the words of Puddleglum to the Green Witch, “licks the other ones hollow.”
Well, I promised myself I would keep these posts short and readable. Better luck next time. One thing I want to get into, already hinted above, is the triangulation of how the parts of Scripture relate to the whole, and how a study of Scripture in the modern world plays an inevitable role in how we articulate that relationship.
In the meantime I will also try to get another book review or two out (I am currently finishing up John Walton’s very fine Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible [Baker, 2006].) I am also finishing up a response to Paul Helm’s review of I&I, even though it is more than a year and a half old. I like to work slowly.
Merry Christmas…the beginning of the end of God’s story.