Why I don't use the Biblical Theology guide section - an appeal for votes on suggestions

This post is inspired by What Is Biblical Theology? 29 Books to Help You Go Deeper (logos.com). I've tried, I've really tried but since I can't imagine Christian theology without the Bible as a lynch pin or a liturgical year without the re-presentation of the history of God's plan of salvation nor can I imagine considering the historical critical method anything other than one method of studying scripture, I just don't get the need for something labeled "Biblical theology". I will easily grant that there are some excellent books published under that umbrella but they tend to fall under what I would call scripture study. Therefore, I put the resources I use under collections representing specific Bible study perspectives and ignore the FL provided section. For those that find the concept useful, this section, like the Systematic Theology guide section has the ability to present the material in multiple views making it very adaptable to the users' current interests.

Suggestion are few and often resource related:

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Rosie Perera

I took a course at Regent on Biblical Theology, so perhaps I can explain what it is and why it's called that.

It's a distinct field from Systematic Theology. The latter is organized by doctrines in a structure that is not found in Scripture per se, even though all the content is based on Scripture. It typically starts with the doctrine of Scripture (Bibliology, which discusses inspiration, etc.), and proceeds to the Doctrine of God (Theology proper), the Doctrine of Christ (Christology) which includes what is sometimes separated out into its own subdivision, Soteriology; then the Doctrine of Man (Anthropology) which includes the doctrine of Sin (Hamartiology, sometimes separated out as its own division), then Pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), Ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), and finally Eschatology (doctrine of Last Things). So it kind of imposes a logical structure on the Bible which the Bible itself does not display.

Biblical Theology, on the other hand, follows themes or motifs throughout the Bible. Those themes can vary depending on the author who is tracing them. Some of the themes traced by Bruce Waltke, who wrote a textbook on Old Testament Theology based on the abovementioned course, are Seed, Bride, Land, and Kingship. Themes often mentioned in New Testament theology include the Kingdom of God, the People of God, the Victory of God.

As Graeme Goldsworthy explains the difference: "Biblical theology, as defined here, is dynamic not static. That is, it follows the movement and process of God's revelation in the Bible. It is closely related to systematic theology (the two are dependent upon one another), but there is a difference in emphasis. Biblical theology is not concerned to state the final doctrines which go to make up the content of Christian belief, but rather to describe the process by which revelation unfolds and moves toward the goal which is God's final revelation of his purposes in Jesus Christ. Biblical theology seeks to understand the relationships between the various eras in God's revealing activity recorded in the Bible. The systematic theologian is mainly interested in the finished article - the statement of Christian doctrine. The biblical theologian on the other hand is concerned rather with the progressive unfolding of truth. It is on the basis of biblical theology that the systematic theologian draws upon the pre-Pentecost texts of the Bible as part of the material from which Christian doctrine may be formulated." ("Gospel & Kingdom" in The Goldsworthy Trilogy, 2000, pp. 45–46.)

Biblical Theology developed out of a Protestant movement in the 1940s–1960s. Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) is sometimes called "the father of Biblical Theology". Other noteworthy names include Walther Eichrodt (1890-1978) and Gerhard von Rad (1901-1971) and Brevard Childs (1923-2007). Bruce Waltke (b. 1930) follows in their tradition. Those were all Old Testament theologians (well, Brevard Childs did both OT and NT). Significant New Testament theologians included C.H. Dodd (1884-1973), Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979), George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982), and currently N.T. Wright (b. 1948, best name ever for a NT theologian!).

So it's not that theology which isn't specifically called "Biblical Theology" is a-biblical.

Hope that helps.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246822#Comment_1246822

Thanks for trying, Rosie, but I still fail to see why tracing themes and motifs is not a method of Biblical criticism rather than theology proper. And to me, theology proper (systematic theology) always begins with the study of God (theos). I understand and value the observation of/study of progressive revelation but that, to me, falls into the history of ideas which overlaps with systematic theology, history of dogma, and history of Biblical interpretation. I am familiar with most but not all the scholars you mention and have never felt a need to classify any of their work outside the normal theology/Bible interpretation categories. What I do see in Biblical Theology is the attempt to recover mental frameworks that have been used throughout Judeo-Christian history. My understanding of Biblical theology as solving a problem that I didn't have is informed heavily by this article. Beginning with Moses - BT Articles - The Ontological and Systematic Roots of Biblical Theology I see Bible study and Systematic theology as overlapping categories. It appears that Biblical theology splits them apart and inserts itself in the middle - overlapping each to some extent.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246861#Comment_1246861

Well, it's just a convention to call it a form of Theology. You can disagree with the name of that field if you want. But that's what it is called.

There is another field of theology that is not "theology proper" -- Practical Theology. That's the study of pastoral ministry and church activities. Schleiermacher coined the term.

So call it a failure of nomenclature, but it's pretty well entrenched to use "theology" in these multiple ways, even though its literal meaning is the study of God.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246867#Comment_1246867

Echoing Rosie...Here is Geerhardus Vos in the Preface to his book, "Biblical Theology" Old and New Testaments"

The term ‘Biblical Theology’ is really unsatisfactory because of its liability to misconstruction. All truly Christian Theology must be Biblical Theology—for apart from General Revelation the Scriptures constitute the sole material with which the science of Theology can deal. A more suitable name would be ‘History of Special Revelation’, which precisely describes the subject matter of this discipline. Names, however, become fixed by long usage, and the term ‘Biblical Theology’, in spite of its ambiguity, can hardly be abandoned now.

Biblical Theology occupies a position between Exegesis and Systematic Theology in the encyclopaedia of theological disciplines. It differs from Systematic Theology, not in being more Biblical, or adhering more closely to the truths of the Scriptures, but in that its principle of organizing the Biblical material is historical rather than logical. Whereas Systematic Theology takes the Bible as a completed whole and endeavours to exhibit its total teaching in an orderly, systematic form, Biblical Theology deals with the material from the historical standpoint, seeking to exhibit the organic growth or development of the truths of Special Revelation from the primitive pre-redemptive Special Revelation given in Eden to the close of the New Testament canon.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246877#Comment_1246877

I like Vos' description as it provides a clear distinction for those who see the need for the distinction and helps me see the differences in understanding of the related fields that make it seem redundant to me. The suggestion of "history of special revelation" convinces me that I do, in fact, understand the domain of Biblical theology better than I thought I did. My disagreement begins as early as "sole material" -- perhaps reflecting my sympathy for the pietist and perennial philosophy movements. But, fortunately, the difference in understanding what academic discipline slot a particular scholar or work falls into does not enter into evaluating the usefulness of their insights. Thanks for the quote.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246861#Comment_1246861

Thanks for trying, Rosie, but I still fail to see why tracing themes and motifs is not a method of Biblical criticism rather than theology proper

Hi M.J. Interesting how the perspective we start with tends to be the obvious one for each of us.

This is an oversimplification, but Sys Theol begins with the categories/questions we want to address, and then seeks to develop answers to those questions and to structure our theology according to those categories, based on our musing and the musings of others including Scripture.

Bib Theol starts with the narrative of Scripture, to develop the questions we need to ask and the emphases we give weight to. It’s like doing biology from the DNA rather than just from the Linnaeus’ taxonomy. It’s more difficult if you don’t start with the categories, but it yields fresh insight into how things are connected.

As an example, more than a decade ago I realized that Jesus’ theology and practice centered on the kingdom of God, and I began to wonder what might change if we did the same thing. Pursuing a Bib Theol of the kingdom has reframed everything I know. I still hold to Nicaea and Chalcedon, but it has led me to much richer Christology where the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord” has taken on a whole new significance and emphasis in my understanding of God’s rescue mission for his world.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246887#Comment_1246887

Thank you - that makes sense but it also implies a different sense of (systematic) theology than I have and a narrower basis of knowledge. My understanding, not surprisingly, is closer to this from the current catechism:

[quote]236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). “Theology” refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and “economy” to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 62–63.

My own interest in theology over the years has been primarily mystical theology, narrative theology and liturgical theology, which are part of (systematic) theology but don't easily fall into preset categories and questions. I do understand why, if you treat systematic theology like Linnaeus' taxonomy, one needs to make room for a more narrative driven approach. But in a church where the narrative of Jesus' life is presented 4 times every year (once on Sundays, three times in weekday services) the narrative approach is the one built into my DNA. The multiple readings of the lectionary keep themes/images shared between the Old Testament/Psalms/Gospels (and sometimes the rest of the New Testament) constantly before the worshipers The Lutheran Gail Ranshaw has done some interesting work in this area.

As I gain a better understanding of the value of Biblical theology, I'm coming to see it as a solution to a problem I never had. However, for those who have the problem, it is a useful solution, if not the solution I would have chosen.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246893#Comment_1246893

MJ, if you are interested enough in it to read a full book, GK Beale's biblical theology of Temple is the one that convinced me of the value of the discipline, and is currently on sale: https://www.logos.com/product/80707/the-temple-and-the-churchs-mission-a-biblical-theology-of-the-dwelling-place-of-god

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246894#Comment_1246894

I have the book and have read portions of it. I will try reading it with the framework of Biblical theology in mind.

Michael Card

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1246901#Comment_1246901

I can’t explain it but I have simply hated biblical theology the moment it reared its ugly head and made an attempt to sideline Charles Hodge with what I consider just trashy thoughts. I have not thought a lot about why I despise biblical theology or my unexplained hyper negative attitude but I guess it is simply that I find systematic theology just a word that means understanding. Without systematizing a subject we are just engaging in obscurantism . And it seems the biblical theology when first developed, that one of the first things it tried to obscure is the conflict between works-righteous and justification by faith. By flattening out knowledge into a long non conclusive tapestry of observing without really thinking (systematizing) it loses the plot. Lets not forget we are born with some knowledge of God without tracing any history and when we do see God in history we are supposed to use that to incrementally add to our inherent knowledge from birth, not just giggle around tracing more and more as though we had no memory or ability to perform logical synthesis . C’mon get real.

anywho…. I found this link recently that reviews the topic more politely than I that you may find illuminating

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/a-systematician-reviews-tom-schreiners-biblical-theology/

NichtnurBibelleser

I read most of my paper editon of Childs years ago and was very happy. He also dives a bit into bible hermeneutics (e.g. probable circular argumentation).