Biblical Theology: An Evangelical Approach

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod received his Th.M. and Ph.D. at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is Dean for Biblical Studies and faculty member of Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, as well as Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal. Dr. MacLeod has contributed articles to Bibliotheca Sacra and The Emmaus Journal. Besides his academic career, David ministers the Word in his home church where he serves as an elder. His e-mail address is dmacleod@ emmaus.edu.

Introduction

The aim of this article is to provide a concise introduction to the discipline of Biblical Theology, in particular the Biblical Theology of the New Testament. To accomplish this, the article will first provide a few representative definitions of the discipline [1] and comment on its major characteristics. Second, it will present the operating presuppositions which guide Evangelicals as they approach the task. Third, it will relate Biblical Theology to the discipline of Systematic Theology. Finally, it will discuss the methodology of Biblical Theology, giving consideration to the organization of the materials and the steps in the process.

The Definition of Biblical Theology

Representative Definitions

Biblical Theology has been defined in various ways, the definitions of Lindsay, Vos, Ryrie, and Ladd being representative. In a now dated article Lindsay wrote, “Biblical Theology seems best defined as the doctrine of Biblical religion. . . . [The] product of exegetical study, . . . [it is] a systematic representation of Biblical religion in its primitive form.” [2] Vos said, “Biblical Theology is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.” [3] Ryrie, obviously building on Vos’ work, said, “Biblical Theology is that branch of theological science which deals systematically with the historically conditioned progress of the self-revelation of God as deposited in the Bible.” [4] Ladd has written, “Biblical Theology is that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting . . . . [It] has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical setting, and in its own terms, categories, and thought forms.” [5] More recently Marshall has defined the discipline broadly. He wrote, “The aim of students of New Testament theology is to explore the New Testament writers’ developing understanding of God and the world, more particularly the world of people and their relationship to one another.” [6]

Major Characteristics

There are four major characteristics [7] of Biblical Theology which emerge from the above definitions. First, Biblical Theology is a scientific discipline, i.e., “the results of its investigations must be presented in systematic form.” [8] The fact that Biblical Theology is a scientific discipline also suggests that those who practice it must possess objectivity. Objectivity means refusing to allow one’s own preferences or prejudices to influence one’s research and conclusions. [9] A second feature of Biblical Theology is that it “pays careful attention to the fact that revelation was embodied in history.” [10] The circumstances which led a given biblical author to write and the historical and cultural situation of the original recipients are important considerations for the Biblical theologian. He must therefore have, in addition to objectivity, the qualification of empathy, i.e., “a capacity to think and feel himself into the way the people of the Bible felt and thought.” [11]

The third characteristic of Biblical Theology is that it emphasizes the progressive nature of revelation. [12] Revelation did not take place all at once. Instead, it was unfolded “in a long series of successive acts and through the minds and hands of many men of varying backgrounds.” [13] When a particular book of the Bible is studied from the perspective of Biblical Theology, it is viewed in the light of the time and historical setting in which it was written. As the text is examined, one finds not a complete revelation but “the records of a revelation in progress.” [14] The Biblical theologian seeks to expound the theology of a particular document “in its own terms, categories, and thought forms,” and not in those of another, later biblical document or in those of a later, postbiblical theology. [15]

The fourth characteristic of Biblical Theology is that “its source of doctrine is the Bible.” [16] Unlike other subjects in the theological curriculum, this particular discipline deals only with truth contained in the Bible.

Operating Presuppositions

The Evangelical [17] approaches his task with certain presuppositions which should be made clear at the start. Briefly stated, he approaches his study with the firm belief that God exists, that He reveals Himself, and that His self-revelation is deposited in the Bible. [18] It is necessary to admit and affirm such presuppositions because of the present climate in biblical studies, which is reflected, for example, in the following statement by Watson: “The question the Biblical theologian has to answer is not whether the theology of the Bible is true, but what the theology of the Bible is.” The Biblical theologian, he continued, “is not concerned with the validity . . . of the theological content of the Bible.” [19]

One must ask, however, how the Bible can be interpreted and understood except from the perspective of its own thought forms. The Bible represents revelation as being true. The Evangelical Biblical theologian must ask, Is this claim true? Did God reveal Himself to men? Did He say and do these things? The answers to these questions, wrote Ladd, transcend the tools of the historian qua historian. They can be answered only on the basis of faith. Only if the scholar “believes that there is a personal sovereign God who is Lord of both nature and history can he accept the Bible’s witness, . . . [and] whether he accepts it or not will be a major determining factor in the way he writes biblical theology.” [20]

A modern critic might respond that only if the Bible is interpreted without dogmatic presuppositions can the results be “objective.” After all, he might say, Biblical Theology is a historical and descriptive enterprise. As Ladd has pointed out, however, the “objectivity” of rationalistic Biblical theologians has proven to be an illusion. [21]

A case in point is the treatment of the person and work of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In this book Jesus is regarded as not only a man, but also the sinless, preexistent Son of God. If Hebrews is honestly represented in its own thought forms and categories, then Christ will be presented as a sinless and supernatural being. Rationalistic historical study, however, has no room for divine or sinless men. As a result, it has been assumed that Jesus was not truly God, nor truly sinless. As Ladd asserted, however, Biblical Theology is not only history; it is theology, and it has categories which are beyond the historian qua historian. Only the theologian who believes can fully accept and understand the Bible’s witness. [22]

One further matter should be noted concerning the Evangelical’s conviction concerning the nature of revelation. It is presupposed that revelation is more than just a history of the religion of Israel and early Christianity. [23] It is also more than just “the communication of information.” [24] It involves as well God’s revelation of Himself in a series of historical events. [25] Biblical revelation, in short, is made up of both words and events. [26] It includes the self-disclosure of God to men in a series of unique historical events of divine deliverance, and it includes the disclosure of the theological meaning of these events. “The events themselves . . . are not self-explanatory; there was always a divinely initiated prophetic or apostolic word of explanation.” [27] The preeminent and final revelation of God is, of course, in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1–3).

The Place of Biblical Theology

The relationship of Biblical Theology to other disciplines in the theological curriculum—to Systematic Theology in particular—is a subject which has engendered much discussion. [28] In the last two centuries the relationship of the two has been unclear. For extended periods of time Biblical Theology was the province of rationalists who had an attitude of “arrogant imperialism” [29] toward Systematic Theology. In fact, many felt that Systematic Theology would vanish altogether. [30] In the hands of the rationalists, Biblical Theology itself fell on hard times. The Scriptures were viewed solely as historical documents, and not as revelation from God. [31]

Two world wars, the Cold War, countless regional conflicts, and the present crisis in the Middle East have dealt a serious wound to rationalistic liberalism and its attitude toward the Bible. [32] The latter half of the twentieth century has witnessed a new climate wherein Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are viewed as distinct yet complementary disciplines in the theological curriculum.

There remains some vagueness, nonetheless, concerning the distinction between the two theological sciences. Part of the confusion arises due to the adjectives biblical and systematic. As has been noted by more than one scholar, both disciplines are biblical and both are systematic. While Systematic Theology does incorporate findings from general revelation, it is, in evangelical works at least, for the most part an exposition of the doctrines of the Bible. Biblical Theology, on the other hand, groups the materials of a given author or time period into a systematic presentation. [33]

The difference between the two disciplines is one of method. [34] The methodological differences between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are four in number. They are different as to precedence, purpose, perspective, and content. [35]

Different as to Precedence

Biblical Theology is foundational to Systematic Theology. In fact, as Vos’ designation “Exegetical Theology” makes clear, Biblical Theology is foundational to all of the theological disciplines. [36] It is foundational in that it is the step immediately following raw exegesis when the student of Scripture seeks the theological pattern in the biblical author’s mind. [37]

One must candidly admit that while Biblical Theology should precede Systematic Theology in the ideal, it does not in fact do so. In his studies, the average theological student is exposed concurrently to exegesis, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, Historical Theology, and Practical Theology. While one might speak, to borrow the baker’s metaphor, of “starting from scratch,” such an ideal is impossible. No one’s mind is a tabula rasa when he approaches the Bible and Biblical Theology. [38]

Not only is it impossible for the theologian (or preacher or teacher) to start from scratch (i.e., without any input from Systematics), it is to be questioned whether he should. In point of fact both Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are methods of dealing with the Scriptures. Just as Systematic Theology cannot do without Biblical Theology, so, it must be stated, Biblical Theology cannot do without Systematics. They are, as Gaffin noted, reciprocal disciplines. [39] Exegesis produces little more than superficial grammatical and critical comments if it is uninformed by Systematic Theology. The kind of study that keeps Exegetical/Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology in the holy bands of matrimony produces “depth exegesis” and “depth theology.” [40]

Having noted the reciprocal nature of the two disciplines, it might be asked whether the idea of the “precedence” of Biblical Theology is a fiction. Stendahl said it is not a fiction but a “methodological device” and an essential one. [41] There are at least three reasons for this device. First, by insisting that Biblical Theology is but the “first chapter” in a process, students are reminded that the work of theology does not end with description and interpretation. They are rescued from the “arrogant imperialism” of Biblical Theology which has in the past sneered at the work of system-building, preaching, and application. [42]

Second, insisting on the logical precedence of Biblical Theology is nevertheless good for Systematics in that “Biblical Theology focuses on revelation as an historical activity and so challenges Systematic Theology to do justice to the historical character of the truth.” [43] As Murray noted, Biblical Theology counteracts “the tendency to abstraction which ever lurks for Systematic Theology.” [44] Systematic Theology has a tendency to de-historize and arrive at “timeless” formulations. This can obscure the truth that God is a covenant making and keeping God, a God who is Creator and Redeemer; in short, a God who dynamically acts within space and time on behalf of His people. [45]

Third, Biblical Theology is foundational to Systematic Theology in that exegesis is foundational to Systematic Theology. [46] While the student may “learn” Systematic Theology during his seminary training, that theology must always be undergoing a process of enforcement, refinement, enrichment, expansion and even change due to the treasures mined by Exegetical/Biblical Theology.

Different as to Purpose

Biblical Theology is a descriptive discipline which concerns itself with what the writers of Scripture regarded as truth. [47] This includes both what they said implicitly and what they said explicitly. [48] Systematic Theology, on the other hand, is concerned with “the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today.” [49] To put this distinction differently, Biblical Theology asks the question, What did it mean? while Systematic Theology asks, What does it mean? [50] Or to state the distinction still differently, Biblical Theology asks, What? and Systematic Theology asks, Why? [51]

It is sometimes asserted that while Biblical Theology is descriptive, Systematic Theology is normative. [52] This cannot be maintained (at least not by Evangelicals) in that the Scriptures are not only historical records, but they are theological witnesses as well; i.e., they speak to the interpreter from the moment he begins raw exegesis. [53] It would probably be more accurate to say that both are normative, but some areas of Biblical Theology (e.g., the Levitical cultus) were temporary in their normative application, while some are permanent. Systematic Theology is a systematic arrangement of the end product of Biblical Theology and all that it has determined to be permanent. [54]

Different as to Perspective

Biblical Theology is concerned with the process of revelation, while Systematic Theology is concerned with the final product. This is illustrated in Vos’ remark that a more suitable name than Biblical Theology would be “History of Special Revelation.” [55] Biblical Theology is not concerned with putting together a final synthesis of biblical revelation; instead, it is a study of the history of the process. Ladd said, “Biblical Theology is primarily historical; Systematic Theology is primarily synthetic.” [56]

Lindsay added that while Biblical Theology is historical, Systematic Theology is historico-philosophical. [57] While the former seeks to “get back there” and hear the biblical writers speak within their own culture and time, the latter takes the data of Biblical Theology and asks of it theological and philosophical questions. To illustrate, a study of the Epistle to the Hebrews by a Biblical theologian leads to the conclusion that the author of the epistle considered Christ to be God and presently dwelling with another who is called God. The Systematic theologian will take that data and data from the rest of Scripture and ask questions about the ontology of God, e.g., “Is God a triune Being?” [58]

Different as to Content

Systematic Theology is concerned with the Bible as a whole; Biblical Theology is concerned with the parts. In other words, Systematic Theology should ideally present a synthesis of the entire doctrinal content of the Bible, while Biblical Theology looks at the theology of a given period [59] or a given man. [60]

The Methodology of Biblical Theology

The Organization of the Materials

The structure or organization of Biblical Theology has been much debated. Two basic methods [61] are open to the student. The first method takes the standard categories or topics (loci) of Systematic Theology and catalogs the teaching of the New Testament author under these. This is the approach used by Guthrie, who calls it the “thematic method.” [62] The advantages of this method are that it demonstrates the overall unity of the Bible (i.e., it relates the block of Scripture under study to the Bible as a whole), emphasizes that Biblical Theology is normative, and not just descriptive, and “shows at a glance what the writer taught on each subject.” [63] There are serious disadvantages to this method, however. It tends to de-emphasize the historical context of the material under consideration. In addition, it does little to reveal the distinct emphases of the individual New Testament authors. Furthermore, it can become little more than an arrangement of proof texts gathered to prove a doctrinal point. In short, this method tends to become a subdividing of the discipline of Systematic Theology. [64]

The second method structures the materials according to the distinctive thinking of the author under investigation. The theology of the New Testament author (whether it is Matthew, John, or the author of Hebrews, etc.) is expounded “in its own historical setting, and in its own terms, categories, and thought forms.” [65] This is the approach of Ladd, who calls it the “historical” method. [66]

Quite often those who adopt the historical method try to structure their materials around the author’s theological “center.” Within the distinct blocks of New Testament Biblical Theology (i.e., Matthean, Pauline, Johannine, etc.), it is generally held that each author had one “master idea,” and all other sections of his theology are to a certain degree subordinate to that idea. [67] To cite but three examples, Marshall found the doctrinal center of Luke in “the salvation established by the work of Jesus,” Käsemann argued that justification by faith was at the center of Pauline theology, and Ryrie suggested that the high priesthood of Christ is the doctrinal center in the Epistle to the Hebrews. [68]

There is one possible disadvantage to the historical method: it can lead to a “splintering of theology”—a situation in which one loses sight of the overall unity of the Bible. [69] This danger is avoided, however, when the historical study is carried on from the perspective of faith. When, through the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, God speaks to the believing scholar from one segment of revelation, he happily recognizes that it is the same voice that he hears in other segments. While the descriptive task demands that he focus on the diversity of the New Testament witnesses, he gladly recognizes and affirms that what he studies is part of a greater whole. The advantage of the historical method, as already suggested, is that it preserves the diversity of the New Testament authors and prevents the variety of emphases in the New Testament from being obscured. [70]

The third method, espoused by Marshall, is really a variation on the second. This method attempts “to trace the development of the ideas that have been deposited in the extant writings.” [71] The goal of this method is to see how the different ideas of the New Testament authors are “related genealogically to one another.” [72] The means to accomplishing this goal is to place the New Testament documents in chronological order and then to trace the development of ideas from the beginning of the New Testament era to the end. [73] This method seems best suited to describing and explaining New Testament theology as a whole, while the second method is the essential method for studying an individual book or author. Even while studying an individual book, however, one will want to show how the author’s ideas developed and how they are related to the ideas in earlier and subsequent writings. [74]

The Steps of the Process

Exegeting the Book. At this point the question might be asked, How does one go about the task of Biblical Theology? The present writer would suggest four steps. First, applying sound hermeneutical principles the student should subject his material to a detailed exegetical analysis. [75] In the process, he should use the standard tools, not neglecting the commentaries (both new and old) [76] and periodical literature.

Tracing the Argument. Having exegeted the book paragraph by paragraph, the student should examine and write out the author’s argument or development of thought. The purpose of this synthetical study is to make clear the author’s theological emphases and his doctrinal sequence.

Establishing the Center. With the theological emphases of the book in front of him, the student should determine the author’s primary theme or motif. This theological center, as noted above, will provide the framework for the arrangement and presentation of the theological materials. [77]

Arranging the Materials. Using the thought forms and categories of the biblical author, an outline can now be developed. The materials should be arranged around the doctrinal center and reflect the author’s own emphases and doctrinal sequence.

Summary

It has been argued in this article that Biblical Theology is a scientific (i.e., systematic) discipline, that it pays attention to the historical context, that it emphasizes the progressive nature of revelation, and that it is biblical. It has been affirmed that there are certain operating presuppositions, which distinguish the evangelical practice of the discipline. Furthermore, it has been argued that although Biblical Theology differs from Systematic Theology in precedence, purpose, perspective and content, the two are reciprocal disciplines. Also, it has been argued that the historical method is superior to the thematic method. Finally, a methodological process involving four steps (exegesis, argument, theme, and outline) has been proposed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the writer of this article would like to say something about its title, “Biblical Theology: An Evangelical Approach.” For some readers the term “evangelical” is such a broad category that it is almost meaningless to use it. John Stott, for example, has recently referred to the “57 varieties of evangelicalism,” [78] and Clive Calver has spoken of “the twelve tribes of evangelicalism.” [79] On a more serious note, David Wells has spoken of three different trends in evangelicalism that have emerged since World War II: “confessional, transconfessional, and charismatic.” [80] The first of his categories he also calls “conservative, or ‘definite.’” [81]

The present article has been written from the perspective of confessional or conservative evangelicalism. In a 1978 monograph J. I. Packer argued that such evangelicalism makes four general claims and holds to six fundamental convictions: [82] The four claims are: (1) Evangelicalism is practical Christianity, i.e., it is a matter of total discipleship. (2) Evangelicalism is pure Christianity, free from accretions and dilutions. (3) Evangelicalism is unitive Christianity; i.e., it seeks to avoid a sectarian spirit. (4) Evangelicalism is rational Christianity, as opposed to the popular preoccupation with experience. The six convictions are the following: (1) the supremacy of Holy Scripture (the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God through which the Holy Spirit speaks to men’s hearts); (2) the majesty of Jesus Christ (i.e., the Lord Jesus is God incarnate); (3) the lordship of the Holy Spirit (4) the necessity of conversion, (5) the priority of evangelism, and (6) the importance of fellowship in the local church.

In light of these claims and convictions it should be apparent that the practitioner of Biblical Theology must be an evangelical. He must be born of the Spirit of God, since this is a prerequisite to knowing and making use of divine revelation (1 Corinthians 2:6–3:4). He must be convinced that the Bible is a supernatural, thoroughly reliable book (2 Timothy 3:16–17). He must work for the glory of Christ and in dependence upon the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. He must be a growing, maturing Christian, since maturity is a prerequisite for understanding the “solid food” of the Word (Hebrews 5:13–14. Finally, he must labor at his task mindful that his work is for the building up of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11–12).

Notes

1. The history and contemporary discussion of Biblical Theology as a distinct branch of the theological curriculum are beyond the scope of the present article. On the history of Biblical Theology, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1955), 1:237–51; Otto Betz, “Biblical Theology, History of,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:432–37; Daniel P. Fuller, “Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 195–213; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1981), 21–27; George E. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, History of,” in ISBE 1:498–505. On the contemporary discussion about Biblical Theology, see James Barr, “Biblical Theology,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, 104–11; Gerhard Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,’” The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 6 (1955): 210–25; A. M. Hunter, “Modern Trends in New Testament Theology,” in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, ed. Hugh Anderson and William Barclay (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 133–48; I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2004), 17–48; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 7–20; idem., “The Search for Perspective,” Interpretation 25 (January 1971): 41–62; Palmer Robertson, “The Outlook for Biblical Theology,” in Toward a Theology for the Future, ed. David F. Wells and Clark H. Pinnock (Carol Stream: Creation House, 1971), 65–91; Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:418–32; Pieter A. Verhoef, “Some Thoughts on the Present-Day Situation in Biblical Theology,” WTJ 33 (November 1970): 1–19; J. G. McConville, “Using Scripture for Theology: Unity and Diversity in Old Testament Theology,” The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 5 (Spring 1987): 39–54; Charles H. H. Scobie, “The Structure of Biblical Theology,” TynBul 42 (November 1991): 163–94; Robert Yarbrough, “Adolf Schlatter’s ‘The Significance of Method for Theological Work’: Translation and Commentary,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 1 (Summer 1997): 64–76; R. W. L. Moberly, “How May We Speak of God? A Reconsideration of the Nature of Biblical Theology,” TynBul 53 (2002): 177–202; Graeme Goldsworthy, “The Ontological and Systematic Roots of Biblical Theology,” RTR 62 (December 2003): 152–64; Frank J. Matera, “New Testament Theology: History, Method, and Identity,” CBQ 67 (2005): 1–21; Tim Meadowcroft, “Method and Old Testament Theology: Barr, Brueggemann and Goldingay Considered,” TynBul 57 (2006): 35–56.
2. James Lindsay, “Biblical Theology,” in ISBE 1:469.
3. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 5.
4. Charles C. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), 12.
5. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 20.
6. Marshall, New Testament Theology, 23.
7. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 12–14.
8. Ibid.
9. Philip S. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” ExpTim 73 (1961–62): 200.
10. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 13; cf. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 6.
11. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” 200.
12. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 13; cf. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 508.
13. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 13.
14. Thomas Dehany Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1870), 26.
15. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 20.
16. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 14.
17. “Evangelicalism is a multi-faceted reality,” says John M. Hitchen, “What it Means to be an Evangelical Today—An Antipodean Persepective, part 1–Mapping our Movement,” EvQ 76 (2004): 48. The writer of this article is, to use David Wells’ expression, “a conservative, or ‘definite’” evangelical. See conclusion of article.
18. The approach that has these presuppositions is called the “historical-theological method” as opposed to the rationalistic “historical-critical method.” Cf. George E. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” in ISBE 1:505.
19. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” 200.
20. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 1:505.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid. Even Albrecht Ritschl objected to the purely historical approach in these words: “Would a man who regards all music as disagreeable noise undertake to write a life and an appreciation of Mozart? That were the true parallel to this atheistic method of writing the history of religion.” Albrecht Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation, 2nd ed., trans. H. R. Mackintosh et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902), 414, quoted in David H. Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” TZ 19 (1963): 94.
23. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 25.
24. Edward J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 41.
25. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 21. Cf. Carl F. H. Henry, “Divine Revelation and the Bible,” in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 254.
26. John Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” WTJ 26 (November 1963): 37. In this article Murray supplied a needed corrective to one modern strand of Biblical Theology which concentrates upon revelation as deed to such a degree that God’s verbal revelation to man is prejudiced. It is important to recognize that while God does act in history, His special revelation in Scripture is the result of “direct verbal communication between God and particular men on particular occasions.” James Barr, “Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” PSB 56 (May 1963): 11, quoted in John Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” WTJ 26 (November 1963): 38. Barr, “Revelation through History,” 7, added that God communicated freely with men “before, during and after these [historical] events.” At the same time, one must not lose sight of the history. Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2, God Who Speaks and Shows, Fifteen Theses, Part One (Waco: Word Books, 1976), 311, wrote, “Biblical Christianity claims to be true not only in its many statements about man’s inner life and about the nature of God, but also in a panoply of statements concerning redemptive historical acts.”
27. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 506. As Carl Henry noted, the Bible “normatively interprets” these special historical events (“Divine Revelation and the Bible,” 255).
28. Cf. Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,’” 218–25; Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” WTJ 38 (Spring 1976): 281–99; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” TJ 5 (Autumn 1984): 113–27; Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 30–34; Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 506; Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 33–46; Otto A. Piper, “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” JBR 25 (April, 1957): 106–11; Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 17–19; Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:419; idem, “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” in The Bible and Modern Scholarship, ed. J Philip Hyatt (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 196–209; Willard H. Taylor, “Biblical Theology,” in ZPEB, 1:593–98; Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 4–5, 14–16; Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” 88–105; Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” 195–200.
29. Cf. Stendahl, “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” 204.
30. Cf. Piper, “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” 110.
31. On the checkered history of Biblical Theology, see the works listed above (n. 1).
32. Cf. Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” 96.
33. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and Mew Testaments, v, 14, 16; Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 33; Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 17. Vos pointed out that in Biblical Theology no less than in Systematic Theology the materials “undergo a transformation” (Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 14). He went on to note (ibid., 16) that “the beginnings of the systematizing process” are already discernible in Scripture. Cf. Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 296.
34. Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 33.
35. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 17–19; cf. Lindsay, “Biblical Theology,” 469.
36. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 4–5. In Ryrie’s opinion (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 17) the logical and chronological order in the theological curriculum is as follows: introduction, exegesis, historical backgrounds, Biblical Theology and, finally, Systematic Theology.
37. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 16.
38. Piper, Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology, 111.
39. Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 295. In this context Guthrie’s remark (New Testament Theology, 33) is true. He wrote, “There is no clear-cut dividing line between them.”
40. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Romans 5:12—An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 299. For the expression, “depth exegesis,” Johnson was indebted to William Manson, “The Early Ministry of Jesus According to St. Mark: A Theological Approach,” in Jesus and the Christian (London: Clarke, 1967), 33. There is, said Johnson, a “hermeneutical circle involving the reciprocity of influence between exegesis and dogmatics” which delivers exegesis from the arid desert of criticism (Johnson, “Romans 5:12, ” 306 n. 50). Cf. also Donald A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. Donald A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 65–95; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Canon to Concept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation Between Biblical and Systematic Theology,” The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 12 (Autumn 1994): 96–124.
41. Stendahl, “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” 202, wrote, “Some will call it a gimmick, and why not?”
42. Stendahl, “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” 204; idem, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” 419. Stendahl noted that in the past Biblical Theology became at times little more than historicism which lacked any interest in relevance.
43. Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 292.
44. Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 45.
45. Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 292.
46. Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 41–43; Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 293–95.
47. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” 422; Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 20.
48. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 18.
49. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 20.
50. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” 419. Stendahl argued strongly for this sharp distinction between “what it meant and what it means.” It is important to bear this distinction in mind for the reasons noted earlier. At the same time, Ladd’s softening of the distinction is realistic. He wrote, “Biblical Theology is primarily a descriptive discipline” (A Theology of the New Testament, 20, italics mine). For the student who exegetes the Word with the intent to teach and preach it to modern men, there is often “no clear-cut dividing line between” the two disciplines (cf. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 33). For an addition critique of Stendahl, see Ben C. Ollenburger, “What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’—A Normative Critique of ‘Descriptive Biblical Theology,’” HBT 8 (June 1986): 61–98.
51. Lindsay, “Biblical Theology,” 469; cf. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 18.
52. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” 419; idem., “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” 198–205.
53. Cf. Gerhard Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 205.
54. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 506.
55. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, v; cf. Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 33.
56. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 506.
57. Lindsay, “Biblical Theology,” 469; cf. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 18.
58. Cf. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 506.
59. Geerhardus Vos, Princeton Seminary’s noted biblical theologian, did not hesitate to speak of the periodization of biblical history: “The method of Biblical Theology is in the main determined by the principle of historic progression. Hence the division of the course of revelation into certain periods. Whatever may be the modern tendency towards eliminating the principle of periodicity from historical science, it remains certain that God in the unfolding of revelation has regularly employed this principle. From this it follows that the periods should not be determined at random, or according to subjective preference, but in strict agreement with the lines of cleavage drawn by revelation itself. The Bible is, as it were, conscious of its own organism; it feels, what we cannot always say of ourselves, its own anatomy. The principle of successive Berith-makings (Covenant-makings), as marking the introduction of new periods, pays a large role in this, and should be carefully heeded” (Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 16). John Murray, Westminster Seminary’s great systematic theologian, agreed: “Biblical theology recognizes that special revelation did not come from God in one mass at one particular time. Special revelation came by process. It came progressively in history throughout ages and generations. . . . Special revelation and the redemptive accomplishments correlative with it have their marked epochs. It is undeniable that the flood and the institutions related thereto, the Abrahamic revelations, the Exodus from Egypt, the Davidic period, the coming of Christ mark outstanding epochs in the history of revelation. . . . The Bible is itself conscious of the distinct periods into which the history of revelation falls. Although there could be more detailed subdivision within certain periods, it could not be contested that the Bible itself marks off the distinguishing character and momentous significance of the creation of man, the fall of man, the flood, the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the advent of Christ. Hence the periods, the creation to the fall, the fall to the flood, the flood to the call of Abraham, the call of Abraham to the Exodus, and the Exodus to Christ are so well defined that this structure must be adhered to in the discipline, biblical theology. . . . The period from the Exodus to Christ would obviously require sub-division. But there is also good reason for recognizing a unity corresponding to that of the other periods.” Murray, “Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 42, 43 n. 22; idem, “Systematic Theology,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:17, 18 n. 2. Two observations are in order. First, although some critics of dispensationalism have objected to the idea that the terms “age” and “period” can be used interchangeably with “dispensation,” it is apparent that Vos and Murray did not. Second, it is striking that Murray’s six periods exactly coincide with those of Scofield: (1) creation to the fall (“innocence”), (2) the fall to the flood (“conscience”), (3) the flood to the call of Abraham (“human government”), (4) the call of Abraham to the Exodus (“promise”), (5) the Exodus to Christ (“Law”), (6) the advent of Christ, or the New Testament era (“grace”). C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1917), 5, note on Genesis 1:28. Except for the sixth dispensation being renamed “church” instead of “grace,” Scofield’s categories remain unchanged in the latest edition of his reference Bible; cf. idem., The Scofield Study Bible III (New York: Oxford, 2005), 4, note on Genesis 1:28. Scofield, of course, added a seventh period, viz., the kingdom, or the millennial age. Murray, a postmillennialist, might not have objected to Scofield’s seventh category had it been framed in postmillennial fashion. However, Murray asserted, “The new revelatory acts associated with the second advent do not come within the province of biblical theology” (“Systematic Theology, Second Article,” 43 n. 22; idem., Collected Writings, 18 n. 2). Dispensational writers, on the other hand, view the millennial age as the culminating chapter in biblical history and therefore a legitimate part of the study of Biblical Theology. See Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago and Winona Lake: Moody and BMH, 1959), 527–31; David J. MacLeod, “The Fourth ‘Last Thing’: The Millennial Kingdom of Christ,” BSac 157 (January 2000): 44–67.
60. As Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 19, noted, Biblical Theology of the Old Testament examines the truth as it was revealed in given periods, while the Biblical Theology of the New Testament examines the truth as it is revealed in each individual New Testament author. The reason for the difference in methodology is that the Old Testament covers many centuries of time, while the New Testament covers less than a century. To illustrate, one of the classic older works grouped its materials in three major blocks (Mosaism, Prophetism, and Wisdom) and several smaller blocks (Primeval Age, the Second Age, the time of the Patriarchs, the time of Moses and Joshua, the wilderness, the settlement of the land, etc.). Cf. Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), ix–xix. This setting forth of the theology of the Old Testament by time periods and stratifications of Israelite history is followed in more recent times by Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965). The approach of von Rad is generally called the diachronic (“through time”) method. It should be noted that some Old Testament scholars have arranged their materials thematically, e.g., Doctrine of God, Doctrine of Man, etc., in the fashion of systematic theology. See the old classic by A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1904), ix–xi. In contrast to these two methods, a “cross-section” approach has been used by Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961). The “cross-section” approach of Eichrodt and others has been called the “structural” method, the “canonical” method, or the “synchronic” (“point of time”) method. In this approach one might examine Micah, for example, to consider the theology of the Old Testament at a certain point in time. For a recent and successful attempt to combine both the diachronic and synchronic methods, see Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 29–33. For further discussion of the methodology of Old Testament theology see: Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 11–28; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 1–19; John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 29–193; Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1998), 11–57 (esp. 53–57). A typical New Testament theology might group its materials as follows: theology of Matthew, theology of Mark, theology of Luke, theology of John, theology of Paul, theology of Hebrews, etc. Cf. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, v–vii; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 7–8; Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 9–10.
61. For further discussion of the methodology of New Testament theology, see Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 72–139. In addition to the thematic and historical approaches, Hasel discussed the existentialist approach (Rudolf Bultmann) and the salvation history approach (Oscar Cullmann).
62. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 72.
63. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 20.
64. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 20; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 24. It should be noted that Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 72, sought to avoid the worst features of the thematic method by grouping the teaching on each theme under the various authors. This does grant some historical perspective. One doubts, however, that a real sense of the argument and historical situation of the various New Testament books is captured in his otherwise excellent work. Guthrie’s work is in fact a halfway house between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. It is really a biblical Systematic Theology of the New Testament.
65. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 20.
66. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature of,” 508. Marshall, New Testament Theology, 25–27, also adopts this method.
67. To cite just two examples, P. P. Saydon, “The Master-Idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” MelT 13 (1961): 19–26; Joseph Plevnik, “The Center of Pauline Theology,” CBQ 51 (1989): 461–78.
68. I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 19, 93–94; Ernst Käsemann, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 168–69; Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 243.
69. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 72. This danger was illustrated by James R. Branton when he wrote, “There is no Christology of the New Testament; there are Christologies. There is no one divine plan of salvation; there are a variety of plans in the New Testament. There is no kerygma; there are kerygmas.” Cf. James R. Branton, “Our Present Situation in Biblical Theology,” Religion in Life 26 (Winter 1956–57): 17.
70. Ladd, “Biblical Theology, Nature Of,” 508.
71. Marshall, New Testament Theology, 25.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid., 26.
74. Marshall, New Testament Theology, 27.
75. For a basic introduction to New Testament exegesis, see John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976).
76. Several years ago a personal friend of the writer of this article completed his doctorate in education at a leading university. His adviser warned him not to cite literature more than two years old in his dissertation! Such modernity may be appropriate for the social sciences, but it is unacceptable to the evangelical theologian. It is with some amusement that the present writer remembers a colleague’s horror at finding a reference to A. B. Bruce in the writer’s dissertation on the Book of Hebrews. Although the student must take into account (again to use Hebrews as an example) the contemporary works of Luke Timothy Johnson, Craig R. Koester, Harold W. Attridge, William L. Lane, Paul Ellingworth, George H. Guthrie, George W. Buchanan, F. F. Bruce, Philip E. Hughes, Matthis Rissi, Otto Michel, C. Spicq and others, he must not neglect the classic works of, among others, Chrysostom, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, Marcus Dods, Franz Delitzsch, James Moffatt, Alexander Nairne, and—yes—A. B. Bruce. To dismiss the great expositors of the past is “both naive and arrogant.” Cf. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), x.
77. For the present writer’s effort at establishing the center of a New Testament book, see David J. MacLeod, “The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews,” BSac 146 (July 1989): 291–300.
78. John Stott, Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 22. Stott attributes his remark to the unnamed editor of The Church of England Newspaper (April, 1998).
79. Clive Calver and Rob Warner, Together We Stand (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1996), 128–30.
80. David Wells, “On Being Evangelical: Some Theological Differences and Similarities,” in Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990, ed. Mark A. Noll, David W. Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 389–410 (esp. 391–92). (1) “Confessional” or “conservative” describes the movement from the 1940s to the late 1970s. This group seeks to define evangelical belief in terms of biblical doctrine. (2) “Transconfessional” describes another wing of the movement that arose in the 1970s. This element shifted “from confessional substance to simple, organized fraternity . . . . The importance of theological belief is being replaced by the importance of effective strategy, proficient fund-raising, and the bold building of personal bases of power and influence.” (3) “Charismatic” includes Pentecostal, and non-Pentecostal renewal movements in Protestantism “that are not primarily theologies. Both arise centrally from a spiritual intuition about the presence of the Holy Spirit. . . . Here, biblical confession arises not as a thing in itself but as an adjunct to the experience of the Holy Spirit.”
81. Wells, “On Being Evangelical,” 394.
82. J. I. Packer, The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem: An Analysis (Oxford: Latimer House, 1978), 15–23. Packer’s exposition of each point should be read. A number of such lists exist today. For example, D. W. Bebbington lists four characteristics that are special marks of conservative evangelicals: (1) Conversionism, i.e., the need to be converted to faith in Christ for salvation, (2) activism, i.e., the need to be involved in the central task of evangelism, (3) biblicism, i.e., a high regard for Holy Scripture, and (4) crucicentrism, i.e., the centrality of the cross and the redemptive work of Christ. See D. W. Bebbington, Evangelism in Modern Britain (London: Unwin Hyman, 1999), 2–3; cf. Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), 55–56.