The Importance of Biblical Theology
Thursday, 28 July, 2005
Over the past couple of months I've been thinking about the way that I've been taught to read the Bible and whether that way is right. Isn't it just a product of Sydney Anglicanism? Aren't there many ways to read the Bible? Isn't it just all about interpretation anyway?
It's funny—no one sits down and says, “This is how you ought to read the Bible,” and then proceeds to show you how to do it. Instead, you are taught how to read the Bible while you are doing other things. You are taught how to read the Bible when you do Bible study in a small group by the way the leader structures the study, phrases the questions and gently nudges you in directions he thinks you should go. You are taught to read the Bible when you sit in church and are taught what it says in sermons—you are taught to read the Bible as the preacher explains why he thinks the Bible is saying what he thinks it is saying. You are taught to read the Bible when you read books by Christians about Christian things—in the way they argue their case for what they believe and exegete the passages in the Bible which teach what they say it's saying.
So, as I was growing up as a young Christian, I was always taught that when you read the Bible, there are certain things you should always keep in mind (where the passage occurs in the chapter, the genre it's been written in, where it occurs in the storyline of the Bible, who wrote it, who it might have been written to, when it was written, etc.) If a phrase or an idea keeps popping up, it's probably because the author thinks it's important and therefore you should too. Most questions about a passage can be answered from the passage itself. You should stick to the text as much as possible and not go off on your own flights of fancy about what you think it means. The Bible interprets itself; you do not have to interpret it.
On Tuesday Mark Baddeley talked about the four different ways of doing theology.
Exegesis
This is basically understanding what the text says—taking one bit, working out what it says, taking the next bit and working out what that says. Mark pointed out that, in a sense, exegesis isn't an easy skill because most people don't read well in the first place and the Bible tends to compress what it says, which means it often requires slightly better reading skills than, say, reading Harry Potter.
Biblical Theology
This is thinking about how the Bible holds together as a coherent whole. Biblical Theology doesn't tell you what to believe; it examines the story/narrative aspect of the Bible—the shape of it and the one-ness of this narrative which has, as its key, the person and work of Jesus Christ. Although the whole Bible is the word of God and is important, when you step back and look at the whole, you will see that some of the stories and passages are more important than others because of their relationship to the over-arching narrative. For example, within the book of 2 Samuel, the promises of God to David and his house are not hugely critical to the narrative of the book within the book but they are incredibly important to the later prophets and the New Testament.
Historical Theology
Historical theology is the attempt to try and understand how Christian teachers and theologians have understood the Bible throughout history. It's a way of looking at the exegesis and systematic theology of the last 2,000 years. Historical theology involves studying people like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, etc. and what they said about the Biblical text and how they pulled what they said together into a systematic whole. It helps you read the Bible better by taking you out of your narrow way of looking at the world and inviting you to consider what other people have thought and why they thought it. This is why we study church history at college.
Systematic Theology
Systematic theology is the discipline where you try to pull things together to create a coherent account of the key things you need to know as a Christian. It's the discipline where you ask questions like, “Who is GOd?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “What did Jesus' death accomplish?”, “What must I do to be saved?”, “What is the right way to pray?”, “What sort of worship honours God?”, etc. It's a way of showing what the Bible says on a topic. To do systematic theology, you have to use exegesis and bring together your exegetical insights. You also have to use Biblical theology because Biblical theology will show you that not all the passages you want to exegete have the same level of importance; some are more central than others and you will see this if you try to structure them in terms of the message that the Bible is on about.
Other
Are there other ways of reading the Bible without doing Biblical Theology but doing the same kind of thing? Yes there are. Mark says there are two main ways: dispensationalism and covenantalism.
Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism (which Mark Baddeley says is fundamentalist and Arminian) focuses on how different different parts of the Bible are (eg. Genesis 17:10-14 [circumcision is a sign that you are saved] and Galatians 5:2 [Christ is the fulfilment of the promises and circumcision is of no value to you]). Dispensationalism is a way of understanding how the Bible holds together by saying that there are two “dispensations” or systems—Abraham is under one system but when Christ comes, that changes things to a different system so that the rules on how God relates his people have been changed. The problem with dispensationalism is that there is too much stress on discontinuity for these things are not exactly true.
Covenantalism
Covenantalism (which Mark says is popular in Reformed and Presbyterian circles) is close to dispensationalism but the main difference between it and Biblical Theology is that it tends to downplay all differences, blurring distinctions between Israel and the church, the Old Testament saint and the New Testament saint, etc. It plays up the unity of the covenants and God's working in the world so that most differences tend to evaporate, eg. baptism is the New Testament circumcision. The problem is, this isn't entirely true either.
So what?
I don't want to reproduce the entire lecture. I just want to talk about why I've come to see Biblical Theology as the right way to read the Bible. It may seem very arrogant to say there's a “right” way and a “wrong” way to read the Bible but I'm hoping that, once you finish reading the rest of this, you won't see my assertion as arrogant but as true.
“Biblical Theology”, says Mark, is a term very particular to the Sydney evangelical context. Few scholars around the world use it and they would probably be puzzled as to what it means because the name is a bit deceptive (after all, isn't Doctrine “Biblical Theology”? It's biblical. It's theological). Mark did't explain how the discipline began but anyway you can't point to a particular individual as being the “inventor” of it because, if you read Calvin, you can recognise it there. (He wouldn't have though.) Biblical theology is just a formal way of showing what is already there in the Bible.
But you won't see it in the Bible if you do not already hold certain convictions about the nature of Scripture. If you do not believe that all 66 books that comprise the Bible is the work of one author (God), then you will not see that author's purpose in writing it. You will not see the shape of the work as it develops from Genesis to Revelation. You will just view it as a random collection of writings and sayings with no apparent correspondence or relevance to each other.
But if you do believe that the Bible is the word of God and that he had a purpose in writing it, then you will view all 66 books as one piece of work and you will try to reconcile the differences between, say, Genesis 17 and Galatians 5 and try to work out why there are seeming contradictions. Or you will try to understand how the first 39 books (the Old Testament) have the same message as the last 27 books (the New Testament). Wrestling with the very nature of the texts will bring you to Biblical Theology.
Perhaps the thing that most convinced me about the “right-ness” of Biblical theology is that the authors of the Bible engage in this discipline—particularly in the New Testament. As you read the writers of the New Testament, they point you to key points in the Old Testament and give you the interpretive keys for understanding the whole. For example, have a look at the way Paul talks about God's promises to Abraham. He uses the promises to understand how the law relates to Gentile Christians (Gal 3). It's not just Paul either; Jesus engages in Biblical Theology on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) and so does Stephen in his speech just before he is stoned (Acts 7). The Bible itself gives you clues which show you that not all texts are “flat” but there is some shape to them—some texts have interpretive control over other texts (eg. the New Testament controls the way we read the Old Testament for the New Testament claims the Old is fulfilled in Jesus).
And so I think Biblical Theology is the right way to read the Bible. Feel free to disagree with me though.
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
I agree.
But my question is, how does the New Testament interpret the New Testament?
I have hitherto thought that the Epistles, especially letters like Romans and Hebrews, places the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus in their theological and scriptural context.
But having looked at Mark again and again this year, I’m starting to suspect that the life, actions and teachings of Jesus actually informs our reading of the epistles. It certainly informs our reading of Revelation.
Whatchoo think?
There are certain NT writers who definitely have the gospels in the forefront of their minds as they write. James especially comes to mind—look at all the allusions he makes to Jesus’ teaching, especially the Sermon on the Mount. I would say that the gospels really shaped the rest of the NT.
I disagree.
That is a caricature of covenantalism.
Don’t disagree with Karen. She is always right.
Nahhh, Philip.
But I am rather troubled by the content with this post. I don’t really see how biblical theology is set up as an alternative to both dispensationalism and covenantalism - everything I have read describes both both of these as interpretations, based on use of the approach of biblical theology. Holders of dispensationalism and covenantalism would disagree vigorously with other (I am so surprised that they are described as comparable!), but I can’t imagine either party disagreeing with what’s been asserted here as biblical theology.
The approach of biblical theology is not particular to the Sydney evangelical context (which I think you mention in your introduction). The term comes up frequently in Presbyterian/Reformed circles, and in theological discussions in other denominational traditions. That’s how we derive our view of the covenants. Nothing described here would be disagreed with by someone holding to covenantalism.
For example, the view that baptism is the new circumcision is a lot more nuanced that how it is exemplified here - infant baptism is based on a lot more than that.
Perhaps I am (I mean, obviously we both agree about how the Bible should be read) splitting hairs, but I am personally annoyed at how covenantalism is being misrepresented. I was taught to read the bible under both Presbyterians and AFESers espousing these lines.
Also, fundamentalism and Arminianism are quite different things, I think.
Do a search for “covenant theology” and similar search terms at Peter Leithart’s site for some good commentary based on this interpretation.
Different note… why is the coathanger diagram NOT on the internet???
Why does Mark distinguishes between Covenantalism and Biblical Theology? (Most of my info comes from him and his lecture last Tuesday.) Since he’s from Queensland, I figure he is not ignorant of the Presbyterian/Reformed view. There must be a reason why he says what he says.
Yeah, do ask him.
The PCQ isn’t that big or influential (it’s not Anglican Diocese of Sydney). Most people you’d ask would say that the Presbyterian church is the Uniting Church these days.