BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Biblical theology is that exercise in which an attempt is made to state systematically the faith affirmations of the Bible. This definition acknowledges that the Bible is a book of faith, that is to say, it records the redemptive meanings of the encounter of God with man. The term “systematically” by no means suggests that the categories of systematic theology are to guide the exercise. Rather it indicates that the task of the Biblical theologian is to express the faith affirmations of the Biblical writers individually and collectively according to the patterns of expression discernible in the Bible itself. Furthermore, an effort is made to present not only an orderly statement, but hopefully a unified description of the faith of the Bible.

Outline

I. History of Biblical theology

A. Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. According to O. Betz, the Reformation laid the groundwork for Biblical theology. Luther’s radical attack upon the authority of tradition, as well as his struggle against the scholastic method in theology and the dominance of Aristotelian thought in the church’s theology, provided the opportunity for the development of a Biblical theology. His great concern for solid exegesis of the Scripture and his personal tendency to employ Biblical ways of thinking created a demand for a theology based radically upon the Bible. Thus, the Reformation with its centuries-distinguished Biblically-oriented scholars (e.g., Melanchthon and Calvin) gave full recognition to the self-sufficiency of the Scriptures, and this fact was felt in the writing of theology.

Tragically, in the period following the Reformation, a Protestant scholasticism developed in which the maintenance of dogmas took precedence over the right of the Bible to stand as a judge of all doctrinal statement. Largely the Bible was used as a mine from which to glean supporting blocks for the various tenets of the church. The assumption prevailed that the Bible contains a single doctrinal system and upon investigation it can be demonstrated that it accords with the church’s creed. This new scholasticism differed from the old Catholic brand at the point of external authority. There was no single church authority to determine the dogmas for which to find support and which interpretation of the Scriptures should prevail.

B. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Students of the history of Biblical theology see pietism with its strong emphasis on Biblical exegesis as the promulgator of this new discipline. Ebeling notes that the struggle was between systematic theology which tended to turn to “the wisdom of the world” and a theology bound to the Scripture. There was no denial of the orthodox foundations by systematic theologians; there was only a disturbing movement toward the scholastic methodology. In the opinion of the pietists, notably P. J. Spener in his Pia Desideria in 1675, orthodox theology became “unscriptural” primarily in its form. But, Ebeling comments, this apparently quite innocuous criticism had far-reaching consequences greater than conceived at that time (G. Ebeling, “The meaning of ‘Biblical theology’” JTS, VI [1955], 215).

In the 18th cent. several men sought to move theology back to “Biblical simplicity.” C. Haymann (1708), a pietist, was the first to produce a Biblical theology, and he has been credited with the first technical usage of this term. He was followed fifty years later by A. F. Büsching, who published in 1758 a monograph entitled Advantage of Biblical Theology over Scholasticism. A colleague of Büsching, the eminent J. S. Semler, joined in insisting that Biblical theology be considered a separate discipline. In 1772 G. T. Zacharia wrote a Biblical theology, the core of which was an explanation of the church.

While the foregoing men were under the “pietistic” concern in this struggle, J. P. Gabler, who more carefully delineated the role of Biblical theology, was a rationalist. In his inaugural address as professor at Altorf, Oratio de justo discrimine theologiae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus (1787), Gabler insisted that Biblical theology must not be a subsidiary discipline to systematic theology but rather a completely independent exercise. He wrote: “Biblical theology is historical in character and sets forth what the sacred writers thought about divine matters; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, is didactic in character, and teaches what a particular theologian philosophically and rationally decides about divine matters, in accordance with his character, time, age, place, sect or school, and other similar influences.” The effect of Gabler’s approach was to focus attention on what the Biblical writers were saying to the people of their day. Literary and historical matters therefore became immensely important in the presentation of the thought of the Bible.

The 19th cent. saw the production of a number of works in this field. The insistence upon the discipline as a historical science prevailed but along with it came the Lehrbegriffen approach, a modified topical systematization which acknowledged the variety of religious consciousness in the Bible. G. L. Bauer, a colleague of Gabler, issued four volumes of Biblical theology in 1800-1802, in which he distinguished between the religion of the Jews before Christ, the religion of Jesus, and the religion of the apostles. In 1813 and 1816, W. M. L. de Wette published a Biblische Dogmatik des AT und NT in two volumes. He discerned two “historically evident steps of revelation” in the OT, namely, the religion of Moses, and the religion of the Jews. In the NT he isolated two levels also, the teaching of Jesus and the interpretation of it by the apostles.

The Ger. philosopher Hegel affected Biblical theology in this cent. In the OT field, W. Vatke published his Religion des AT in 1835 in which he applied Hegel’s threefold analysis of history. Vatke distinguished three periods in OT thought, the preprophetic, the prophetic, and the postprophetic. These three divisions corresponded to Hegel’s scheme of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In the NT field, F. C. Baur of Tübingen applied Hegelian principles to the study of the early Christianity. The “thesis” was the religion of Jesus, the “antithesis,” the theological reflection of Paul, and the “synthesis,” the Old Catholic Church.

Both Vatke and F. C. Baur produced a host of followers, but the former prob. had more lasting influence in the development of Biblical interpretation.

Through most of the 19th cent., some of the scholars, both in the OT and the NT, took seriously historical criticism and environmental factors; others by-passed them. In the OT field, for example, B. Bauer in his Die Religion des AT (1838-39) turned aside from criticism of sources and focused on the OT material itself, whereas H. Schultz, a conservative scholar, in his Alttestamentliche Theologie (1869) maintained a historical orientation but at the same time took full note of literary problems. In the NT area, two conservatives, Bernard Weiss (1868) and W. Beyschlag (1891) published NT theologies which recognized systems of thought in the NT but attempted to harmonize them (teaching of Jesus, views of the first apostles, etc.). These men also gave attention to the environment of Judaism and Hellenism as well as the findings of historical criticism.

Both of these men were subjected to severe criticism by H. J. Holtzmann in his Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie (1897). Holtzmann employed the Lehrbegriffen approach, but he was confident that the harmonizations of Weiss and Beyschlag were utterly superficial and artificial. At a later time even Holtzmann was subjected to criticism by some of his own liberal camp who rejected his analysis of the thought of the NT into distinct systems of doctrine, such as the theologies of Jesus, Paul, Peter.

In the more pietistic circles, a strongly biblicistic and uniquely historicistic view developed. The attempt was made to keep a unity between the OT and the NT. Such is reflected in E. W. Hengstenberg’s Christologie des Alten Testaments (1892), but esp. in J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Der Schriftbeweis (1825-55) in which he sees the entire Bible as recording God’s saving action in behalf of mankind. Both the OT and the NT are linked together in this “salvation history.” Rightly therefore von Hofmann can be called the father of Die heilsgeschichtliche Schüle.

Near the end of the 19th cent., during the last decade, liberal Biblical scholars rejected Biblical theology as a legitimate, Biblical discipline. In its place it substituted “the religious history of Israel and the church,” “the religion of the OT and NT,” “Hebrew Religion,” or “the religious ideas of the Bible.” The rapid growth of literary and historical criticism forced theology out of exegesis and left nothing but man’s evaluation of Biblical materials in the light of literary principles and archeological and historical findings. Some of the books arising out of this movement, which reaches well into the 20th cent., are (1) Duff’s Old Testament Theology (1891); (2) H. Wheeler Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the OT (1913); (3) H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel (1914); (4) Albert C. Knudsen, The Religious Teaching of the OT (1918); (5) W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion: Its Origin and Development, 2nd ed. (1937). E. W. Parsons’ The Religion of the NT (1939), though appearing late in this movement, shows much the same commitments. There came into existence what has become known as Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schüle (the History of Religions Schools), which took as a fundamental premise that Biblical religion is not unique but one among the many religions of mankind. The proper study of the Bible necessitates the comparison of Biblical concepts with those of surrounding religious movements. One must also acknowledge wholesale synthesis between OT and NT religion and the prevailing philosophical and religious movements contemporaneous with them. Quite obviously, therefore, OT and NT religion was the result of the quest of man alone in his naturally religious state. The Bible gives us the record of the religious strivings of one group of men. But as Betz comments, this approach “failed to evaluate the material theologically. The question of truth was overlooked; the claim of revelation by witnesses in the OT was disregarded” (ibid., p. 432).

The thrust for this movement in the OT field came from Vatke, who influenced K. H. Graf, A. Kuenen (1870), who in turn influenced J. Wellhausen, whose study of Israel in 1895 gave primary place to the critical study of the OT. A plethora of monographs appeared holding to this view, all inspired by Graf and Wellhausen.

The definitive work which gave impetus to this movement in the NT area was that of W. Wrede, entitled The Task and Method of Socalled NT Theology, published in 1897. In this pamphlet Wrede called for the displacement of NT theology with the religion of primitive Christianity. His reasoning, according to Betz, was that the essence of Christianity could not be determined by the study of the canonical books alone but also from the study of surrounding religious and philosophical cults and concepts. H. Weinel’s Biblische Theologie des NT (1911) and J. Kaftan’s Neutestamentliche Theologie (1927) are fair samples of this approach. In projecting his views, Wrede had help from two deft scholars, Wilhelm Bousset and W. Heitmuller, both of whom were outstanding students of the environment of early Christianity, the mystery religions and the religious philosophies.

C. Twentieth century. The early part of this period saw the dominance of the History of Religions School in the exploration of the Bible and its religious thought. However, several men clung rather tenaciously to a concern for the theological understanding of the Bible. In his excellent monograph, The Theology of the OT (1904), A. B. Davidson emphasized that the kingdom of God concept controls both the religious consciousness of Biblical man and his cultic and liturgical practices. Another OT Theology appeared in 1922 from the pen of E. König which sought to give attention to Israel’s faith as basic to understanding the OT. NT scholars were at work, too, esp. the more conservative ones. G. B. Stevens produced his NT Theology in 1904, developing it along Lehrbegriffen lines. A Catholic scholar, Paul Feine, published his Theologie des NT in 1913, in which he gave expression to von Hoffmann’s Heilsgeschichte theme.

The important years in this cent. were 1910-20 during which radical criticism in Biblical studies reached a point of saturation and sterility. Revolt set in. Bible scholars realized that the historical method had been made a sacred cow. It had become an “end in itself” rather than a means for explicating the truth of the Bible. It was thus creating a relativism and skepticism in Biblical studies. On the basis of its presuppositions the best that one could hope for in the study of Biblical problems was “a set of probabilities.” One could not expect to find that which was normative in Biblical faith. As one writer has commented, analytical historicism killed the soul but retained the corpse.

It was the comparatively unknown Swiss pastor, Karl Barth, with his publication of a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1918 who brought about the re-entry of theology into Biblical studies. Terribly upset over the failure of “social Christianity” and evolutionary views of Biblical truth, as well as distraught over the church’s role in World War I, Barth “turned back to the Bible” to let it speak to him. He discovered, in the words of Stephen Neill, “that the Bible is not a collection of the pious meditations of man upon God, but the clarion tones in which God speaks to man and demands his response” (The Interpretation of the NT, 1861-1961 [1964], 206). Barth saw the Bible as the Word of God. He did not repudiate historicism; he simply called for an empathetic study of the Bible, that is, a coming to it with full acknowledgment of its faith character and permitting it to speak to us. A full and new appraisal of the theological statements of the Bible was eventually demanded by the Barthian return to the Bible.

Since Barth’s Romans the whole field of Bible has been under intense investigation and out of this fresh look has come a number of theological studies of the Bible. Space will neither permit the mention of all the works nor an extensive annotation on them. It will be sufficient to list them with brief notes.

a. Old Testament. W. Eichrodt, Theologie des alten Testaments, 3 vols. (1933-38). The basic theme and unifying element is the covenant of God with Israel. E. Sellin, Alttestamentliche Theologie auf Religionsgeschichtlicher Grundlage, 2 vols. (1933). Sellin still operates in the History of Religions School but finds a major theme in the holiness of God. (L. Kohler, Theologie des alten Testaments [1936].) He focuses on the thought of God as Lord. (W. Vischer, Das Christuszeugnis des AT, 2 vols. [1934].) He led the way in showing the christological focus of the OT. T. C. Vriezen (1949), E. Jacob (1955), O. Procksch (1956) follow through with the same emphasis. Procksch, however, gives large place to the concept of “saving history.” A leading figure in OT theology is G. von Rad, whose two volume work, Alttestamentliche Theologie, appeared in 1957 and 1960. Following the cultic emphasis of the Scandinavian scholars, von Rad has concluded that the theological thinking of Israel “arose with the task of gathering, arranging, and interpreting different documents of traditions.” An attempt was made by Israel’s theologians to relate the material in these documents to God’s mighty deeds.

Among the Eng. writers are H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the OT (1946); H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (1956). These two books are relatively brief, presenting general positions on the OT material, and representing commitments to liberal views on criticism but at the same time acknowledging the need to see the faith of Israel. In America, G. E. Wright, The Challenge of Israel’s Faith (1944); J. Bright, The Kingdom of God (1953); and P. Minear, Eyes of Faith (1949) follow the above-mentioned Eng. writers in their general views on, and the analysis of, OT materials. M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (1946). Employing a topical rather than a chronological scheme, this author seeks to demonstrate the unity of the two testaments theologically. O. Baab, The Theology of the OT (1949). For Baab, the key to OT thought is the keen awareness of the presence of God on the part of OT men. G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the OT (1959). Knight’s contention is that the OT must be read and understood, at least for the Christian, in the light of Christ. The OT is Christ-centered.

Three strongly conservative OT theologies are worthy of note. G. Vos, Biblical Theology (1948). Unfortunately, it is not complete; it breaks off with the incarnate ministry of Jesus, no doubt due to the death of the author. The two completed portions divide the OT into Mosaic and prophetic parts. Vos combines historical and theological analyses in each part, with major emphasis on the latter. P. Heinisch, Theology of the OT (1940). This is a Roman Catholic work which is sound on basic Christian truth but gives large place to distinctive Rom. views. J. B. Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (1962). Payne organizes the religious thought of the OT around his special understanding of the word “testament.”

b. New Testament. It is virtually impossible to note all the works which have been published in the field of NT theology. We can list only representative ones. Three continental works are noteworthy. E. Stauffer, NT Theologie (1941). Stauffer is oriented to the “salvation history” analysis. Beginning with creation and the Fall, he moves through the law and promise to the great deed of God in Christ with its consequences and promise for man. R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT, 2 vols., Eng. ed. (1951, 55). An existentialist in theology and a follower of the History of Religions School, as well as a form-critic, Bultmann emphasizes the historical development of the preaching (kerygmas) of the Early Church as reflected in the NT. The Sitz im Leben of the church at given times controlled the nature of the preaching. NT theology strictly however is the attempt to clarify the new understanding of self which the believer has whenever confronted with the Gospel. The NT gives us the new self-understandings of the particular writers.

J. Bonsirven, The Theology of the NT, Eng. ed. (1963). This French scholar has produced the most significant Catholic NT theology. The object of NT theology is “to bring together the revealed truths contained in the NT, to define their meaning as the authors understood it, and to attempt to classify these truths in order of importance, so as to provide a basis for Christian dogma” (pp. xii, xiii). Methodologically, Bonsirven pursues a historical pattern beginning with Christology and the theme of Jesus’ preaching. From there on he employs a chronological scheme, in which he deals with the primitive community, Paul, and the maturing church.

The British have two main NT theologies, though they have a host of outstanding thinkers in the field who have written widely on a variety of themes related to NT theology. A. M. Hunter, The Unity of the NT (1957). This author fully recognizes the problem of unity in diversity, but decides that NT thought can be correctly presented under the Heilgeschichte scheme with three main divisions: Christology, a Savior; soteriology, a way of salvation; and ecclesiology, a saved people. A. Richardson, An Introduction to NT Theology (1959). This Eng. writer from a moderate conservative stance approaches NT theology on a thematic basis, that is, he predetermines the areas of thought which control and unify the NT. Richardson begins with Biblical categories such as “belief” and “knowledge” and seeks through careful and thorough penetration of the Biblical material to delineate their meanings.

American NT scholars have worked diligently in this field and the fruit of their labors is abundant. It will be sufficient to mention three or four of the more widely-circulated NT theologies. F. C. Grant, Introduction to the Thought of the NT (1950). With full attention paid to the environmental factors relating to the development of the church and her theology, Grant identifies “areas of thought” in the NT which are not basically chronological nor geographical but which overlap.

Among these “areas,” for example, are the doctrines of God, man, and Christ. Grant’s great hope, however, is to demonstrate a synthesis of thought in the NT.

J. W. Bowman, Prophetic Realism and the Gospel (1955). By “prophetic realism” Bowman means that the governing thought of the whole Bible as well as the NT is that in prophetic understanding God dialogs with man and as a result man really comes to know God and purposes in his heart to do God’s will. The theme of prophetic realism is the Gospel and the content of it is Jesus Christ.

F. V. Filson, Jesus Christ, The Risen Lord (1956). This author finds the resurrection of Christ as the “central interpreting fact” of the thought of the NT. All the writers of the NT wrote from a post-resurrection stance, asserting that the risen Christ constituted the great saving reality for them. The earliest preaching centered on the Resurrection. NT theology must start from this “rock-bottom fact” and move out into the varied dimensions of its meaning for the early Christians.

Two conservative theologies have appeared during the last decade, one by F. Stagg, NT Theology (1962) and the other by C. C. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (1959). The former is developed according to a thematic pattern beginning with “The Plight of Man as Sinner” and ending with “Eschatology,” a typically systematic form, whereas the latter is developed according to the historically topical form, “the synoptic theology,” “the theology of Acts,” etc.

II. Relation to other disciplines

It is most natural to ask how Biblical theology relates to other forms of Biblical study. Is there a distinct province for Biblical theology?

A. Exegesis. The task of exegesis is to determine as accurately as possible through grammatical and historical analysis what the Biblical writer said at the time that he wrote. Textual and philological problems are to be resolved by the exegetical procedure. The exegete need not go beyond this function, but the Biblical theologian takes what is determined through exegesis and seeks to unfold the whole pattern of thought of the Biblical writers. Because his primary material is the Bible, the Biblical theologian must have some proficiency in the exegetical discipline, too.

B. NT introduction. Questions such as Who wrote this book? When was it written? To whom was it written? are sometimes determinative of the thrust of any particular Biblical passage. For example, to conclude that Paul did not write the pastoral epistles but that they were composed decades after his day is to raise serious questions as to the development of church life during the 1st cent. What, therefore, was the normative view of church structure during Paul’s day? What form did the church take in those early decades? Biblical theology will depend upon such “introductory studies” for its development of the varied areas of NT thought.

C. Dogmatic or systematic theology. The relationship of these two disciplines has remained unclear for several centuries. As Ebeling has noted, Biblical theology “was originally conceived only as a reform of systematic theology” but has become a separate discipline with far-reaching consequences. In fact, the relationship has been dominated by three “self-contradictory tendencies.” (1) Biblical theology “rejects any directions laid down for its work which come from dogmatics.” (2) “The more ‘Biblical theology’ as a historical discipline derives its vitality from its detachment from dogmatics, the less it can be indifferent to the utterances of dogmatics.” It must have the respect of dogmatic theology and it must function as a norm for dogmatics, for “dogmatics must render account of its use of Scripture before the judgment seat of historical study of the Bible.” (3) While granting the detached status and the normative functions, Biblical theology remains “dogmatically interested to a high degree.” The issue here is simply the personal theological stance of the Biblical theologian. How does he view the Bible? What is his conception of the Christian faith? While Ebeling is not altogether sure that Biblical theology has a province of its own, he does not say that it should be eliminated. He sees Biblical theology and systematic theology as always keeping an open conversation between themselves (op. cit., pp 218-225).

Speaking from the standpoint of NT theology, the Catholic scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg sees dogmatic theology as an attempt to understand revelation with the help of rational philosophy but Biblical theology as an attempt to understand it strictly from the Scriptures themselves. Methodologically they differ somewhat, but “they are one at a deeper level, for Biblical theology, too, is led by the ‘sense of faith’ and goes forward κατὰ̀ τὴ̀ν ἀναλαγίαν τῆς πίστεως” (Rom 12:6). He goes on to assert that there is no opposition between them, either in their content or in their outcome—“They simply probe into, and light up, the same Revelation from two different standpoints; what is more they are the complement of each other” (NT Theology Today, trans. David Askew [1961], 18).

C. C. Ryrie’s resolution of the problem of relationship is much more explicit and cogent. He notes the similarities between the two exercises. Both are based upon the Bible and are systematic. “It is farthest from the truth to think of Systematic Theology as unbiblical or Biblical Theology as unsystematic.” The differences, according to Ryrie, are four in number. (1) As to precedence, Biblical theology is foundational to systematic theology. The order of study “ought to be introduction, exegesis, historical backgrounds, Biblical theology, and finally Systematic Theology.” (2) As to purpose, “Biblical Theology is to discover what the writers of Scripture themselves regarded as truth not only from what they wrote but from that which their writings reflect of their theological thinking. The purpose of Systematic Theology is to set forth not only the truth but the reasons why it is truth.” (3) As to perspective, Biblical theology is shaped from the point of view of the Biblical writers whereas systematic theology has the perspective of today. (4) As to content, Biblical theology investigates particular parts of the Bible but systematic theology “is based on all of the Bible as a whole.” “Systematic Theology is as a blossom, each petal of which Biblical Theology has examined separately and in detail” (Biblical Theology of the NT [1959], 17, 18).

One significant point in Ryrie’s discussion needs enlargement. He acknowledges that systematic theology may use sources of knowledge other than the Bible, but he does not give proper emphasis to this fact. Systematic theology to be vital to the church’s life and ministry must engage in a constructive presentation of the meaning of the Christian faith with full usage of any information beyond the Bible which will elucidate the faith to the current situation. The insights of secular history, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and science can aid in creating a viable view of Christian truth which will speak to men of the particular day in which it is composed. Biblical theology, on the other hand, will function to correct any aberrations in this constructive effort since it moves primarily within the boundaries of the Biblical record. (Cf. P. S. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” Expository Times, LXXIII [April, 1962] 200.)

K. Stendahl’s view that Biblical theology is a descriptive science, limited to “what the Bible meant” at the time of composition has some merit. It reserves “what it means” for systematic theology, presumably. However, this dichotomy can be unmanageable and distorting. What of the universal and authoritative nature of the Bible? “What it means” is a form of “translation” of “what it meant” and need not therefore to be far removed from the latter. The Bible must function as a corrective to systematic theology and Biblical theology aids in this work. (“Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” IDB, I, 418, 419).

III. Methodology in Biblical theology

Biblical theology takes many forms today and this fact highlights the disagreement among Biblical theologians as to methodology. It seems wise therefore not to attempt a suggested method for Biblical theology but rather to note some of the areas of study which are germane to a valid Biblical theology.

A. Unity of the Bible. Any attempt at systematization of Biblical thought raises acutely the problem of unity. For one thing, the immense range of literary material both in the OT and NT confronts one immediately. There are histories (1 and 2 Kings, Acts); hymns (Psalms); prophetic and apocalytic writings (Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation); letters (Pauline epistles); gospels (Matthew, etc.); wisdom writings (Proverbs, James). Moreover, the history during which this lit. was composed covers a span of 150 years. This diversity raises the question of the norm for these books. Should we follow liberal views of the OT and assume the prophets to represent normative Heb. religion? With regard to the NT, should we seek the norm in the synoptics, in Paul, or in John? It seems reasonable to assert that the diversity must be admitted but seen as falling under a common witness to the redemptive activity of God in behalf of sinful mankind. Furthermore, this unity must bridge the testaments, at least for Christians, who claim that Jesus as the risen Christ was the Messiah to whom the OT witnessed. The OT represents promise, and the NT, fulfillment; and this is supported by the words of Jesus (Matt 5:17; John 5:39; cf. also Gal 4:4). Thus, a Biblical theory must give attention to that which binds the Book into a unit historically and theologically.

B. Salvation history. Stendahl is correct when he states that in Biblical theology “history presents itself as the loom of the theological fabric” (op. cit., p. 423). The uniqueness of Biblical faith rests in the revelation of God through events in history. The Hebrew-Christian faith stands apart from all the religions of mankind precisely because it was not founded upon mythologies or cycles of nature. Neither did it spring out of philosophical exploration or mystical experiences. Eldon Ladd comments, “It arose out of the historical experiences of Israel, old and new, in which God made himself known” (“The Saving Acts of God,” ChT, III [1961], 18). The God of Israel was the God of history, the Geschichtsgott, as the Germans say. A cursory review of the Bible will clarify this fact, for it takes us along a historical path—a series of events—from creation, the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the settlement in Canaan, the establishment and conduct of the kingdoms, the Exile, the return to Pal., the life of Christ and the establishment of the church. These events are not just accidental happenings in history; they are acts of the living God who possesses a redemptive concern for His people. Thus, this history is Die Heilsgeschichte, “salvation history” and in it God shows His redemptive nature and brings into existence and sustains His redeemed people. Von Hofmann, von Rad, G. E. Wright, O. Cullmann, J. Danielou, E. Rust and a host of other OT and NT theologians have emphasized the centrality of history in Hebrew-Christian faith. This being true, Biblical theology to be valid in its methodology must show this salvation history because God’s revelation of Himself in history is one of the fundamental categories of Biblical thought.

C. Christ the key to Scripture. For Christians, as Rust points out, Christ is “the Lord of Scripture as He is Lord of history and life.” The OT presents an unfinished picture of God’s redemption without the NT. It is promise without fulfillment. Significantly, the Early Church did not repudiate the old Scriptures, not only because their Master did not do so, but because the Old Testament provided the only basis for their understanding and verification of their existence in the sacred history of Israel. The key to this necessary interpretation was the coming of Christ. Three events in particular, recorded in the Luke-Acts history, sharpen this fact. (1) The walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Concerning the Master’s conversation, Luke records, “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (24:27). (2) Stephen’s defense (Acts 7). Quite obviously, if Stephen had been permitted to finish his speech, he would have demonstrated the role of Christ in this history. Indeed, Christ was not only the key but also the redemptive climax. (3) Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). Amazingly, the eunuch was reading Isaiah 53. When the eunuch admitted that he did not understand what he was reading, Philip “beginning with this scripture...told him the good news of Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Christ is the fulfiller of the promises to the people of Israel, and this fact governs the NT.

To assert that Christ is the key to Biblical theology is easy; but to demonstrate it raises the hermeneutical question: How is Christ related to the OT? Are we to look for types? Is there a historical typology which will legitimately acknowledge the uniqueness of the faith of OT saints but at the same time maintain the promise-fulfillment equation? The task of Biblical theology is very exacting at this point.

D. Confessional and kerygmatic. The Bible has a witnessing dimension. The Bible is not just a recording of so many events and facts from a people of a distant day, but rather a lengthy statement of their faith in a God who acted savingly in their behalf. Hebrews and Christians “confess” God as their Savior and preach through these Scriptures that He is the Savior of all mankind, and in particular through Jesus Christ in the NT faith. For Biblical theology this means several things methodologically: (1) some of the statements of the Bible are not to be taken primarily as theological statements with logical and reasoned support behind them. They indeed have theological significance, but they are first of all statements of faith. This puts them in certain instances beyond full and explicit analysis. (2) As far as this is possible, the confessional and kerygmatic elements should be evident in the systematization of the thought of the Bible. One cannot go as far as G. E. Wright to say that “Biblical theology is the confessional rehearsal of history together with the inferences from it. However, the confessional nature of the Biblical material must be demonstrated if Biblical theology is to be truly Biblical. To settle for philosophical and theological abstractions is to present a truncated view of the faith, and indeed to miss its vibrant nature. (3) A “reading between the lines” in “doing Biblical theology” is important, too. For example, while Paul’s letters are for the most part written to deal with local problems of one kind or another and do not have the highly reasoned character of theological treatises, they do give expression implicitly, if not explicitly at times, to a general theological stance on his part. The NT theologian, therefore, will have to draw some inferences from Paul’s statements and then relate them to the whole of the Pauline corpus and the whole NT.

To reiterate, Biblical theology is a definitive study of the Bible, assisted by all the other Biblical disciplines, in which an attempt is made to demonstrate by some Biblically suggested system God’s revelation of Himself through Christ for the express purpose of redeeming sinful mankind.

Bibliography W. Wrede, The Task and Method of So-called NT Theology (1897); C. T. Craig, “Biblical Theology and the Rise of Historicism,” JBL, LXII (1943), 281-294; J. Lindsay, “Biblical Theology,” ISBE, I (1943), 469-472; M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (1946); O. Baab, “OT Theology: Its Possibility and Methodology,” The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. by H. R. Willoughby (1947), 401-418; A. N. Wilder, “NT Theology in Transition,” The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. by H. R. Willoughby (1947), 419-436; G. Vos, Biblical Theology (1948); R. C. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology (1950); R. L. Hicks, “Present-Day Trends in Biblical Theology,” AThR, XXXII (1950), 137-153; W. D. Davies, “Scene in NT Theology,” JBR, XX (1952), 231-238; E. C. Rust, “The Nature and Problems of Biblical Theology,” RE, L (1953), 463-487; H. Hahn, OT in Modern Research (1954); R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT, Eng. ed., II (1955), 237-251; G. Ebeling, “The Meaning of Biblical Theology,” JTS, VI (1955), 210-225; E. G. Kraeling, “Toward a Biblical Theology,” The OT Since the Reformation (1955), 265-284; A. Richardson, “Historical Theology and Biblical Theology,” CanJTh (1955), 157-167; F. V. Filson, Jesus Christ The Risen Lord (1956), 9-30; E. L. Allen, “The Limits of Biblical Theology,” JBR, XXV (1957), 13-18; C. C. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the NT (1959) 11-24; E. J. Young, “What is OT Biblical Theology?”, EQ, XXXI (1959), 136-142; G. E. Ladd, “The Saving Acts of God,” ChT, V (1961), 18, 19; R. Schnackenburg, NT Theology Today, trans. by David Askew (1961); O Betz, “History of Biblical Theology,” IDB, I (1962), 432-437; J. B. Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (1962), 15-43; K. Stendahl, “Contemporary Biblical Theology,” IDB, I (1962), 418-432; P. S. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” ExpT, LXXIII (1962), 195-200; D. H. Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” TLZ, XIX (1963), 18-105; S. Neill, The Interpretation of the NT, 1861-1961 (1964), 191-235; H. Anderson and Wm. Barclay (eds.), The NT in Historical and Contemporary Perspective (1965), 133-148; 237-260.