What is ‘biblical theology’

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean―neither more nor less.” (L. Carroll, Through the
Looking-Glass, chapter 6)

In search of a definition

You may be surprised to learn that many scholars are as arbitrary as Humpty
Dumpty in their use of the term, ‘biblical theology.’ There is no commonly
agreed definition of what constitutes ‘biblical theology’. You also may be
surprised to hear that some argue that ‘biblical theology’ did not exist before
the late 18th century, and equally surprised to discover that others believe
that on a strict definition here can be no such thing as a biblical theology today.

What is the problem? Why cannot biblical theology just mean what it says (to
come back to Alice)? ‘Biblical’ from the word ‘Bible’, which comes to the English
language from the Greek ta biblia (‘the books’), via the Latin biblia (‘the book’),
and which in this context means the books of the OT and NT recognized as
canonical Scripture by the Christian church. Theology deals with theos, meaning
‘God’, and by common consent this includes God’s relation to the world and to
humankind. The ending -logy, from the Greek logos, used in this way means the
ordered, systematic, rational, scientific study of a subject. Explained in this
way Biblical theology ought to mean something like the ordered study of what
the Bible has to say about God and the relations God has with the world and
humankind.

There are some people who have used the term ‘biblical theology’ to mean
such a system of Christian thought and teaching based on the Bible: a
‘theology that is in harmony with the Bible’. In this way, the theology of Karl
Barth could well be described as ‘a biblical theology’. Yet, surely this use of the
term ‘biblical theology’ is as imprecise as it is redundant, since all branches of
Christian theology claim to be in some way based on, or in accord with, the
Bible. Indeed, a system of Christian thought and teaching based on the Bible,
which the church articulates in each new age would better be described as
‘dogmatic theology’ (Barth called his work Church Dogmatics) or ‘systematic
theology’.

So, what is meant by Biblical Theology? It is much more common to use the term
‘biblical theology’ to mean the theology of the Bible itself, ‘the theology
contained in the Bible’. Such a definition—that makes a clear separation between
what the Bible meant in its original historical context, and, what it means for
Christians today—is a relatively modern distinction; a point of view that
emerged towards the end of the eighteenth century. Prior to that, the teaching

1|Page
of the Bible was not clearly distinguished from the teaching of the church; the
one was more or less integrated with the other.

Yet it would be nonsense to claim that the church had no biblical theology
before the eighteenth century; it would be better to say the Church operated
with an integrated biblical theology. Yet, more of that later.

With the rise of historical-critical methodologies the distinction came to be

drawn between the original theology of the Bible (discovered by such historical
methods) and the later dogmatic theology of the church. Biblical theology came
to be regarded as entirely independent from ‘dogmatics’ and from later church
tradition. This period of history (late 1700s to 1970s) may be categorized as a
period of independent biblical theology. Important as its contributions have
been, this approach led to an impasse in Biblical Studies which we still find
ourselves in today.

Developments in the 1980s and 1990s led many scholars to conclude that biblical
theology cannot be regarded as a purely historical and descriptive discipline in
isolation from the community which accepts the Bible as Scripture. Rather it
stands in an intermediate position between historical study of the Bible on the
one hand, and dogmatic theology (and related areas) on the other. This re-
definition argued for what may be characterized as an intermediate biblical
theology.

A brief history of ‘biblical theology’

(i) Integrated biblical theology

As the books of the NT were added to those of the OT to form the scriptural
canon of the Christian church, these books were used by the church in
formulating its beliefs and in refuting what it considered to be false teachings
(e.g. Gnosticism). The early Christian apologist, Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyon, late
second century) certainly used a form of biblical theology as he explained
the relation of unity to diversity within Scripture, the relation of the OT to the NT,
and the overall shape and meaning of biblical revelation. But, like the Church
Fathers who followed him, he made no distinction between the teaching of
Scripture and the regula fidei (‘rule of faith’) or, teaching of the church.

The most basic challenge to biblical theology in any age is that of reconciling the
desire for a uniform and consistent set of beliefs with the unmistakable
diversity of the Bible. In the early centuries this problem was often tackled
by means of allegory, which looked for a hidden, spiritual sense behind the
literal meaning. This tended to disregard history and find the same theology
throughout the whole of Scripture; the obvious danger was that of reading
meanings into passages quite contrary to their original significance.

2|Page
When we come to the Reformation in Europe, the work of the Reformers was
clearly based on a form of biblical theology. Luther, Calvin and others sought to
return to scriptural teaching and to judge later traditions and practices by
norms drawn from Scripture. They too had to face the problem of unity and
diversity; Luther, for example, did this with his dialectic of law and gospel, and
his use of ‘justification by faith’ as an interpretive key. Yet even with the
Reformers there was no clear distinction between the faith of the Bible and the
faith of the church.

(ii) An independent biblical theology

In the post-Reformation period the way was prepared for an independent

biblical theology by three developments. Firstly, the practice developed within
Protestant Orthodoxy of compiling collections of proof texts (dicta probantia),
usually accompanied by exegetical comments, in order to demonstrate the
biblical basis of Protestant doctrine. The ‘proof text’ approach has obvious
weaknesses but it did turn attention to the content of the Bible. The earliest
known use of the term ‘biblical theology’ refers to a work of this kind published
in the 17th century. Secondly, the revival movement we know as Pietism,
reacting against the barrenness of Protestant orthodoxy (though not against
orthodox belief), turned to the Bible for spiritual and devotional nourishment.
In the eighteenth century several Pietists published works with ‘biblical
geology’ in the title. Thirdly, a different kind of reaction that of Rationalism,
wanted to escape from later church dogmas and discover in the Bible universal
and timeless truths in accordance with reason.

A succession of ‘biblical theologies’ was published from around 1790 well

on into the nineteenth century. The problem was that application of the new
historical-critical methods (themselves influenced by the prevailing Rationalism)
brought out the diversity of Scripture (especially of the OT v. the NT) and
emphasized the complex process of historical development through which the
Bible came into being. Thus biblical theology began to diverge into OT
theology and NT theology.

The historical approach revolutionized the understanding of the Bible, including

questions of authorship and date, thus inviting a quite new historical
reconstruction. Archaeological discoveries provided a mass of material from the
Ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman world which made the religion of
the Bible look less unique. By the end of the nineteenth century OT and NT
theology had given way to the study of the history of religion
(Religionsgeschichte). This approach is well characterized in W. Wrede’s 1897
monograph, ‘Concerning the Task and Method of So-called New Testament
Theology’. Wrede held that both terms of the expression ‘NT theology’ are
wrong. He contended that since the discipline is purely historical it cannot be
limited by the bounds of the canon but must include all relevant literature.

3|Page
Its true subject matter is not theology but early Christian religion which the
scholar tries to investigate as objectively, correctly and sharply as possible.
How the systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with
them―that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament
theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and
systematic theology. Here indeed is independent biblical theology!

After the First World War the reaction in dogmatic theology led by Karl
Barth had its counterpart in a renewed interest especially in OT theology, with
W. Eichrodt’s Theology of the Old Testament being perhaps the most
impressive of a series of such works. On the NT side the best-known work was
R. Bultmann’s brilliant if controversial Theology of the New Testament.
Important contributions were also made by O. Cullmann in his Christ and Time
and Salvation in History. These certainly represent a re-emphasis on theology
rather than history of religion, and some have spoken of a ‘biblical theology
movement’, especially in the English-speaking world, which peaked in the
1950s.

The 1960s and 1970s saw a movement back to emphasis on diversity and
development within the Bible. A purely historical approach was encouraged
by the development of numerous ‘Departments of Religious Studies’ within
universities. Biblical theology was seen as dealing with what the Bible ‘meant’,
not what it ‘means’, though in fact for many not only was biblical theology
abandoned, but even OT and NT theology were ruled out of court. At best one
could speak of the Priestly theology or the Deuteronomic theology in the OT
field, and of Pauline or Johannine theology in the NT.

Somewhat misleadingly, this highly fragmented, historical, descriptive approach

could still be labelled by some of its practitioners as ‘biblical theology’, though it
could well be argued that it is strictly neither ‘biblical’ nor ‘theology’. Yet on the
other hand if the term was understood in a stricter sense as dealing with OT and
NT together, and dealing with the ordered study of the biblical understanding
of God and his relation to the world and mankind, many biblical scholars
would simply say that such a thing is quite out of the question today. This is
the impasse in which biblical scholarship finds itself at the present time.

New directions

Recent years have seen a questioning of some of the basic assumptions of

modern biblical study and this has opened up the possibility of new directions in
biblical theology.

Academic study of the Bible has tended to separate it from the life of the
church. There appears to be a growing awareness that the study of the Bible

4|Page
cannot be separated from the ongoing community which accepts it as
canonical Scripture. In the field of literary studies various forms of ‘reader-
response criticism’ have stressed the role of the reader in the interpretation of
texts. Accordingly, texts have meaning only in the context of an ‘interpretive
community’; clearly the appropriate interpretive community for the Christian
Bible is the Christian church. A growing number of biblical scholars have been
speaking of what has b e e n called ‘the responsibility of biblical theology to
the community of faith’. W. Wink began his The Bible in Human
Transformation (1973) with the startling sentence, ‘Historical biblical criticism is
bankrupt.’ Wink does not in fact advocate the abandonment of historical
methods; he goes on to explain, ‘Biblical criticism is not bankrupt because it
has run out of things to say or new ground to explore. It is bankrupt solely
because it is incapable of achieving what most of its practitioners considered its
purpose to be: so to interpret the Scriptures that the past becomes alive
and illumines our present with new possibilities for personal and social
transformation.’

This links up with another recent trend, the growing questioning of the role
of historical criticism. What is being questioned is not so much the method itself
as the use that is made of it. Typically, historical criticism has regarded the
biblical text as data from which to reconstruct the history and religion of
ancient Israel and the early church. It has looked not so much at the text as
through the text to the history which lies behind it. It has tended to regard only
the earliest level to which it can penetrate as ‘authentic’.

Recent reactions against this kind of approach include ‘canonical criticism’,

which examines the whole process of transmitting, editing and shaping the
biblical material up to and including its final canonical form. The ‘tradition-
historical’ approach seeks to trace the long and often complex process of the
transmission of biblical traditions through the OT, the inter-testamental period
and on into the NT without a break. Two series, Overtures to Biblical Theology
(Fortress Press) and Biblical Encounters (Abingdon Press), published studies of
biblical themes which, while not ignoring diversity, tended to stress continuity,
and also relate the themes to contemporary concerns.

The claim of historical criticism to present an objective, neutral descriptive

approach to the Bible is increasingly questioned. Modern hermeneutical theory,
especially as influenced by H.-G. Gadamer, recognizes that there can be no
interpretation of texts without presuppositions. Not that such presuppositions
go unquestioned; the interpreter must remain open to the text and participate
in a ‘fusion of the horizons’, i.e. the horizon of the text and the horizon of the
interpreter. The underlying presuppositions of much historical criticism have
been rationalistic and positivistic, so that some of the most central assertions
of the texts themselves―the presence and activity of God in nature and in
history―have been set aside.

5|Page
Yet another significant trend is a new willingness to focus on the final, canonical
form of the biblical text. This is generally typical of the renewed literary
interest in the Bible (which can otherwise be marked by considerable
diversity). Literary critics tend to look at the text as it stands, rather than through
the text to the history that lies behind it.

Most significant of all for charting a new direction for biblical theology has been
the advocacy of a ‘canonical approach’ associated primarily with the work of
B.S. Childs. Childs argues that ‘the canon of the Christian church is the most
appropriate context from which to do biblical theology’. Childs does not reject
historical criticism, but seeks to go beyond it by focusing on the form of the
text which has been accepted as canonical by the church.

These trends have to be carefully and critically evaluated, but they do

demonstrate a certain convergence of opinion and point towards a new
direction for biblical theology.

(iii) An intermediate biblical theology

There can be no return to the situation of an integrated biblical theology which

existed before the rise of the modern historical approach. Yet the pursuit of a
totally independent biblical theology has led to an impasse. What holds
promise is an approach which sees biblical theology as a bridge discipline
standing between historical (and literary) study of Scripture on the one hand,
and the use of Scripture by the church in dogmatic theology and related
disciplines on the other.

Historical-critical study of the Bible still has an important role to play. The books
of the Bible must be interpreted against their historical background; questions
of authorship, date, destination, purpose and so on must be based on a
critical assessment of the evidence; and study of individual books and authors
must be based on painstaking exegesis which aims to understand the meaning
of the text in its original setting. But the limits of historical criticism must be
kept in mind. The method can generally yield only possible or probable, not
certain, results. No historian is free from presuppositions; those of the biblical
critic require careful scrutiny. It is not just the (often hypothetical) original form
of a tradition that is ‘authentic’; all levels of Scripture must be given due weight
through to the final edited form.

Literary study of the Bible can provide an alternate vantage point from which
to view the Bible as a whole. Especially where it deals with Scripture in its final
canonical form, it can shed light on the shape and structure of the Bible, and
on its essential continuity. But care must be taken to ensure that the text is not

6|Page
understood in a way inconsistent with the original historical meaning.

An intermediate biblical theology will assume and accept the findings of the
historical and literary approaches, but will seek to go beyond them and move
from analysis to synthesis. It will still be basically concerned with ‘the horizon of
the text’, and will attempt to provide an overview and interpretation of the
shape and structure of the Bible as a whole. It will seek the unity and continuity
of Scripture, but without sacrificing the richness of its diversity. It will focus not
on exegetical details but on the broad interrelationships between the major
themes of the Bible, and above all on the interrelationship between the
Testaments.

An intermediate biblical theology provides a bridge to dogmatic theology,

the discipline which seeks to apply the Word of God in each new day and age.
Dogmatic theology in turn ought to illuminate and direct every aspect of the
church’s life: it must form a bridge to the church’s worship, preaching,
teaching, devotion, ethical reflection and Christian action. The biblical material
synthesized by biblical theology constitutes the norm which has to be
correlated with the situation faced by the church today. While the
contemporary Christian community is the true interpreter of Scripture, it is
equally true that the community must constantly scrutinize its faith and life in
the light of the Word of God. Contemporary theological concerns (e.g. ecology,
feminism, human rights) do not determine or dictate the conclusions of
biblical theology, but they can prompt biblical scholars to reassess the
scriptural evidence which may have been obscured or distorted by later non-
biblical prejudices and presuppositions.

Biblical theology is canonical theology

Biblical theology, it may be suggested, is canonical theology in five senses.

1. Firstly, biblical theology is to be limited to the canonical books of the

church’s Scripture. However important they may be for the study of the
history of religion, the inter-testamental literature and the Apostolic
Fathers are not part of the scriptural material which the church
recognizes as constituting the norm of its faith and life. This of course
does not deny that there may be much of value and of truth in these
and other non-biblical works, only that biblical theology is concerned
with those books which contain the norm by which value and truth are
to be evaluated.

2. Secondly, biblical theology is to be based on the entire canon, consisting

of both OT and NT. Much recent German discussion has focused on the
question of ‘eine gesamtbiblische Theologie’, an all-biblical theology’.

7|Page
 This means above all seeking to do justice to the OT, not just seeing it as
a quarry of proof texts or, in terms of ‘law’, as a foil for the gospel.

3. Thirdly, biblical theology is to be based on the Christian form of the

canon. In the Hebrew order of Torah―Former Prophets―Latter
Prophets―Writings the emphasis falls on Torah as God’s supreme
revelation. The Christian order (based on the Septuagint for the OT)
is Torah―History―Writings―Prophets―Gospels―
History―Epistles―Revelation. In this order the gospels are central. The
position of the prophets makes the OT open-ended, looking forward to
the Christ event, while the books following the gospels look back to it.

4. Fourthly, an intermediate biblical theology will be based primarily on the

final canonical form of the text. The word ‘primarily’ is important, for
the historical-critical approach remains a preparatory stage of biblical
theology and a safeguard against unwarranted interpretations. But
what the church has always accepted as canonical is the final form of
the text.

5. Finally, a canonical biblical theology will attempt to deal with the full
range of the canonical materials. In particular it will resist the temptation
to adopt ‘a canon within the canon’ which gives priority to certain
themes, passages or books to the exclusion of others. This is a short cut
to finding unity in the Bible which must be avoided. For example, the
Pauline epistles are of fundamental importance for biblical theology, but
the Epistle of James is part of the canon also and must be given its place
in a fully canonical biblical theology.

A structured biblical theology

What form will such a biblical theology take in practice? There are those who
see biblical theology primarily as a dimension of exegesis, or of the study of
individual books or authors, or of particular biblical themes. Certainly this can
be part of biblical theology provided the passages, books or authors under
study are placed in their total biblical context. The tracing of themes through
both OT and NT, already referred to, is certainly an important part of biblical
theology. But the question must be raised as to whether such fragmented
study is sufficient. The study of biblical themes in isolation raises the
question of how the various biblical themes are interrelated. Studies which
span OT and NT raise the question of the interrelationship of the Testaments.
Such questions cannot be answered without some view of the structure of the
biblical revelation as a whole.

8|Page
The challenge of biblical theology

If biblical theology is to be thought of as a bridge discipline then it is a

bridge which must carry heavy traffic―travelling in both directions. And it
must be a truly ecumenical enterprise in which scholars of different
denominations and confessional backgrounds co-operate.

Though for long the Cinderella of the theological disciplines, and though still
subject to violent attack by many academic biblical scholars, there are signs
that biblical theology may be about to come back into its own.

9|Page