Biblical Theology according to Vanhoozer
The task of biblical theology… is to present the theology of the Bible – the parts and the whole – in a manner that lets the texts, in all their peculiarity and particularity, set the agenda. In short, biblical theology is the attempt to provide a holistic yet historical account of the biblical testimony to the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Exegesis and Hermeneutics,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, p. 53)
By the way, Vanhoozer’s article in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology is a excellent examination of the connection between biblical theology, exegesis, and hermeneutics. He demonstrates clearly that someone’s biblical theology will be directly affected by their methods of exegesis and their hermeneutics.
Vos defines Biblical Theology
Biblical theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity. (Geerhardus Vos, “The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology,” The Union Seminary Magazine 13, 1902, p. 196)
For those interested in further study, Geerhardus Vos is often considered the “father of Reformed Biblical Theology.” You can find many of his books and articles online here.
Rosner’s definition of Biblical Theology
[B]iblical theology may be defined as theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyse and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus. (B.S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, pg 3)
Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is integral to the whole process of discerning the meaning of the biblical text and of applying this meaning to the contemporary scene. (B.S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, pg 3).
Four or five years ago, as I was contemplating continuing my studies toward a PhD, I had to choose a major area to study. My first thought was New Testament, and that is a wonderful area of study. I love Koine Greek, both reading and translating, and I’m particularly interested in linguistics and discourse analysis.
However, I decided to study biblical theology. And, as broad as the statement above by Rosner seems to be, I’ve found that it is true. Anyone who has read the Bible and has attempted to apply what they’ve read to their lives has practiced biblical theology.
As a generalist (someone who desires to study many different areas), biblical theology was the right choice for me. Biblical theology touches on many of the other disciplines within biblical and theological studies: New Testament, Old Testament, Exegesis, Systematic (Dogmatic) Theology, Historical Theology, Hermeneutics (Biblical Interpretation), etc.
In the last century (especially the last half of the last century), the discipline of biblical theology changed. New approaches began to grow out of what some called “the death of biblical theology.” These new approaches led to what we now know as liberation theology, feminist theology, narrative theology, canonical theology, and many others. New authors began to examine the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Centuries-0ld categories (systematic categories) began to be questioned and re-examined.
So, this is the discipline that I decided to delve into. And, I’ve loved it! I loved studying both the New Testament and the Old Testament. I’ve enjoyed reading and discussing books on systematic theology and hermeneutics.
I’ve also found that biblical theology is a great basis for studying the church. I’ve been interested in the study of the church (ecclesiology) for some time now. Combining my desire to understand biblical theology with my desire to study the church seemed natural, and it has worked very well. (Many of my blog posts here were written as a result of that study.)
Now, I’m finishing my prospectus and beginning to my write my dissertation for my PhD. Both biblical theology and ecclesiology (the study of the church) will play a large role in my dissertation. In fact, my dissertation will be a biblical theology of the purpose of the assembling of the church (thus, the title of this blog).
One of the difficulties of studying biblical theology is that there is no agreed upon methodology. Almost every scholar agrees that biblical theological methodology begins with exegesis. But, methodological differences begin there: What passages should be exegeted? How should they be exegeted? How should those passages be combined with other passages? How should the theology be applied in contemporary culture?
And, so, apart from being united in calling their works a “biblical theology”, scholars are usually united in very little else. From their analysis of the text to the synthesis into a theology, different authors take (sometimes vastly) different approaches. Thus, methodology usually determines the result of any biblical theological study.
I’m planning to write several posts concerning biblical theology. Now, I know what you’re thinking… “Who wants to read a blog post about biblical theology, much less several blog posts?” Don’t worry. First, I will continue to write about the church, like I have for the last three+ years. Second, remember that you already practice biblical theology.
More than likely, your methodology (like mine, and most other people’s) is a default methodology based on what you’ve been taught or based on your system of theology. You may find, as I have, that portions of your theology are not based on Scripture, but instead are based on historical, philosophical, or cultural extrapolations.
Hopefully, these posts will help all of us think about how we study Scripture and how we apply that study to our lives.
NT Theology Lecture: The Assembled Church in Corinth
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to present a lecture in New Testament Theology. Dave Black asked me to speak in his class on the topic of the assembling of the church in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
I presented the lecture titled “The Assembled Church in Corinth” as an exercise in New Testament Theology, hopefully to not only encourage the students in their understanding of the church, but also in their understanding and practice of New Testament and Biblical Theology.
I’ve added the mp3 file to my Resources page. You can either download the recording, or stream it online. Also, I’ve included a pdf file of my outline on that same page.
This is the outline that I used for my presentation:
——————————————-
The Assembled Church
I. Introduction and Background
Andrew Chester – “The Pauline Communities†– A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997):
Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down.
This brief summary may seem over-idealized; it may indeed seem somewhat grandiose and abstract, especially in the light of the occasional letter that Paul wrote to quite different communities, often on very specific and mundane issues… It is also to be said that theory and practice in any case often fail to coincide, and the way that a particular community lives can be very far removed from Paul’s vision of what it should be. Paul himself is made painfully aware of this. Indeed, it is probably true to say that we have a semblance of Paul’s vision for his communities, to a large extent, because of the problems that have arisen in a number of those communities and that Paul feels the need to counter. That is, Paul finds himself faced with what he considers false practice, or even a complete negation of his ideal of the Christian community, and hence has to urge those in these communities that he has founded to become what they know they should be, and not remain as they are. (105)
As Chester points out, we have Paul’s vision for the church because the churches that Paul wrote to were not living according to that vision.
The church in Corinth is a good example of a church that failed to live according to that vision.
Margaret Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation) suggests that Paul’s purpose in writing to the church in Corinth was to reconcile the many factions that had formed. Why? Because division and factions were contrary to what he taught in all the churches.
A. Division from one another
- In Chapters 1-3, they were dividing around certain leaders / apostles.
- In Chapters 6-8, they were dividing around certain doctrines (strong/weak)
- In Chapter 11, they were dividing on economics
- In Chapters 12-14, they were dividing around spiritual gifts
B. Division from other churches
Paul consistently reminds them that all churches practice the same things. This begins in the greeting while Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are not independent but, “to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.†(1 Corinthians 1:2)
- (1 Corinthians 4:17) That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
- (1 Corinthians 7:17) Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
- (1 Corinthians 11:16) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
- (1 Corinthian 14:33-34) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
Paul expected consistent behavior and practices in all the churches.
II. Paul’s Corrections
Paul corrects the divisive attitudes and actions of the Corinthians believers.
A. Identity
In spite of their problems, Paul continually recognizes them as the church, as separated from the world (i.e. holy) by God, as called by God, as brothers and sisters.
- (1 Corinthians 1:2) To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints
- (1 Corinthians 1:4) I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus
- (1 Corinthians 1:9) God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
- (1 Corinthians 1:30) He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
Notice that this is all in the first chapter! Paul does not say that the Corinthians WILL BE the church if they do certain things right. They ARE the church. This becomes very important when we begin discussing the church meeting.
B. Character and Practices
Paul expects children of God to display a certain character and do certain things, not in order to become God’s children, but because they ARE ALREADY God’s children.
In fact, Paul dedicates much of his letter to demonstrating that their character and practices are not aligned to their identity.
C. Who is responsible for correcting these problems?
Paul addresses his letter to the church. He describes the problems to the church. He calls on the church to take action to correct the issues involved. While leaders (elders/pastors) can help the church understand their identity and their responsibilities as children of God, leaders cannot correct the church or obey for the church.
Once again, this becomes very important as we begin to think about the church meeting.
III. The Question about Spiritual Gifts (Analysis)
Paul talks about the church gathering in 1 Corinthians 14. But, we must not separate these passages from their context. 1 Corinthians 14 is part of a longer section concerning spiritual gifts. This section begins in 1 Corinthians 12 with the phrase “Now concerning spiritual gifts…â€, and ends at 1 Corinthians 14:40, after which there is a change of subject. There are other linguistic connections throughout this section and especially between the beginnings of chapter 12 and the end of chapter 14.
So, Paul’s primary teaching about the church meeting falls in a section of Scripture where he is answering questions or dealing with issues concerning spiritual gifts.
A. Corinthians 1-11
Before we begin analyzing 1 Corinthians 12-14, we should realize that this letter is a whole discourse. We should place the section within the letter, and also look for information within 1 Corinthians 1-11 that may lead up to this section:
- (1 Corinthians 1:4-8) Paul is grateful that the grace of God has enriched the believers in Corinth such that they do not lack any spiritual gift.
- (1 Corinthians 8:1) All of us possess knowledge. This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (Key concepts that bridge the entire letter – also found in 1 Cor 12-14)
- (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) Men and women prophesying. Since we learn later that prophesy is for the purpose of edifying the church, the setting seems to be a church meeting.
- (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) Problems when the Corinthians are sharing the common meal (Lord’s Supper) together. In this passage in particular we see that carrying out certain activities is not the point of meeting together.
B. Corinthians 12-14
Meaning is found primarily is paragraphs. Paragraphs are made up of sentences which offer propositions, illustrations, arguments, etc. But, the author’s meaning is found at the paragraph level. Thus, we should analyze our passage paragraph by paragraph.
There are 14 paragraphs in 1 Corinthians 12-14:
Paragraph 1: (12:1-3) (3 sentences)
Introduction: Although once they were guided by idols that could not speak, now they are guided by the Holy Spirit who leads them to proclaim “Jesus is Lord.â€
Paragraph 2: (12:4-11) (17 sentences)
Despite the many different ways that God gifts, serves, and empowers, all of the gifts are given for the same reason: for the mutual benefit of the church.
Paragraph 3: (12:12-26) (21 sentences)
Though our gifts are different, we are all part of the same body, and we need one another, especially those whose gifts seem less significant.
Paragraph 4: (12:27-30) (9 sentences)
We are not part of just any group. We are part of God’s group – Christ’s body – and God decides how to place us in his group.
Paragraph 5: (12:31-13:3) (5 sentences)
Exercising our spiritual gifts is not as important as demonstrating love to one another.
Paragraph 6: (13:4-8a) (16 sentences)
Love causes us to give preference to others, always.
Paragraph 7: (13:8b-10) (6 sentences)
Spiritual gifts will one day cease to be necessary.
Paragraph 8: (13:11-12) (8 sentences)
Today we are like immature children, but we are growing toward a mature state.
Paragraph 9: (13:13) (2 sentences)
Even in that mature state – when faith and hope are not necessary – we will still love one another.
Paragraph 10: (14:1-5) (11 sentences)
We demonstrate love in the use of our spiritual gifts when we use them primarily to build up others, especially when the church is assembled together.
Paragraph 11: (14:6-14) (13 sentences)
If I exercise a spiritual gift (such as tongues) in way that you do not understand, then I am not building up the church.
Paragraph 12: (14:15-19) (9 sentences)
When the church is meeting together, it is more important that the church is built up than for someone to exercise their spiritual gifts, even someone who is very spiritual.
Paragraph 13: (14:20-25) (11 sentences)
While there is a purpose for those gifts that do not build up the church, that purpose is not carried out when the church is assembled.
Paragraph 14: (14:26-40) (27 sentences)
So, whenever the church is gathered together, everything that we do together should be done for the purpose of building up the church.
Once we understand Paul’s argument and progression, we also need to determine why he wrote this passage. Obviously, he was answering a question or dealing with an issue concerning spiritual gifts, but could there have been another reason for 1 Corinthians 12-14?
The linguistic concept of prominence can help us to determine Paul’s focus. By examining grammatical and syntactical structures, rhetoric, repetition, and other linguistic devices, we can attempt to discern what was most important to Paul.
Two paragraphs stand out as prominent in this passage:
- Paragraph 9 stands out because of the rhetorical devices that Paul used. Thus, Paul was emphasizing the importance of love in the exercise of spiritual gifts.
- Paragraph 14 stands out because of the grammatical and syntactical structures. Thus, Paul was also emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts whenever the church assembled.
Since Paragraph 14 is prominent, let’s consider it in more detail:
Whenever the church comes together… whatever is done should be done for edification.
I. 2-3 people speak in tongues if there is interpretation, otherwise they should be silent.
II. 2-3 people prophesy, while others weight what they say.
- Prophecy
- If one person is prophesying and another stands to speak, the first is to be silent.
- Everyone is able to prophesy in a manner that allows everyone to grow.
- The prophets are in control of their gift, because God does not cause confusion.
- Weighing Prophecy
- Women should not weigh prophesy, but should remain silent during that time of the meeting.
- God does not speak only to the prophets.
- True prophets should recognize the truth of what Paul writes here.
Whether prophecy or speaking in tongues (with interpretation) (or the exercise of any other spiritual gift) everything should be done decently and in order (as described above).
Why would Paul only focus on tongues and prophecy in this section?
It is a paradigm:
1.   “Tongues†represents any gift that is not immediately understandable and thus is not edifying to the church.
2.   “Prophecy†represents any gift that is immediately understandable and thus is edifying to the church.
How do you think Paul would treat interpreted tongues?
Where would “teaching†fall in this paradigm? So, which instructions should we follow for teaching?
These are the types of questions that we need to consider as we “synthesize†the information into a New Testament theology.
IV. The Church Assembled (Synthesis)
In this section, I’m going to make some general remarks concerning the assembling of the church according to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Much of this will come from the passage that we just analyzed (1 Corinthians 12-14), but in order to determine a theology of the book, we must consider the entire book. To do a complete study, we would need to analyze each section – paragraph by paragraph – and consider the purpose of each section and paragraph and how each one relates to the entire letter.
1. When the church in Corinth came together, they ate together. Eating was not considered a separate part of their meeting; instead, they considered it “The Lord’s Supper.†Paul encouraged this thinking as long as there were no factions. Paul exhorted them to treat one another as equals in the way that they ate together.
(1 Corinthians 11:17-33)
2. Men and women both took part in the church meeting. Paul encouraged men and women to pray and prophesy. He also recognized the importance of the spiritual gifts of all believers. Certainly, there were limitations, as with all aspects of the church meeting. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 12)
3. There was no distinction between different kinds of church meetings. Paul gives his instructions in the context of “whenever you come together.†This does not mean that the church in Corinth did not meet at different times for specific activities (service, prayer, etc.), but Paul would expect the same principles to guide each type of meeting. (1 Corinthians 14:26)
4. The purpose for the church assembling is mutual edification. Whenever the church in Corinth came together, he expected them to work together in order to build up one another. When the church is meeting, the spiritual giftedness of an individual is not as important as the edification of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:1-26)
5. The precise nature of the spiritual gift is not as important as the manner in which it is exercised and the intended result. Paul does not define the various spiritual gifts, and he never gives us the same list twice. We do not decide if our speech is encouraging or instructing or both. (1 Corinthians 12)
6. Several people should speak during the church meeting, and everyone is responsible for discerning what is said. This makes more sense when we understand that the main form of teaching during this time was discussion, not lecture. But, Paul’s vision included multiple people speaking in order to build up the church, while other have the opportunity to consider and question what is said, again in order to build up the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)
7. Love is more important than anything else. We must never forget this. If we are not demonstrating love for one another (especially for those who seem less significant or less gifted or less anything), then we are not meeting as the church as Paul envisioned. (1 Corinthians 13)
When placing this passage within the context of the whole letter, it may be beneficial to consider how we as the church can demonstrate certain key ideas while the church is meeting. For example:
1. I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
2. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people… but now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of … not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
3. I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be served. (1 Corinthians 10:33)
A biblical theology is a practical theology
There is a very interesting and very important discussion occurring in a couple of blogs. It was started by Jeff (at “The Practicing Church“) in his post called “Practicology.” After reviewing the many “-ologies” which various groups espouse or emphasize, Jeff makes the following statement:
Truth is, I’m not as impressed by how much someone knows about the Bible as I am whether someone is living out what they know.
Jeff concludes with this statement:
So if there’s an ‘-ology’ I’d coin to describe all this – I’d want it to be ‘practicology’ – the study of putting our faith into practice. A faith that works itself out in life.
Laura (at “Who in the World Are We?“) continues Jeff’s discussion in her own post called “Practicclesiology” which is focused primarily on a practical ecclesiology – a practical understanding of the church.
Laura describes the theory of ecclesiology like this:
The theory of ecclesiology consists of the rich, deep biblical truths, describing our safe identity and position in Christ as persons and community. Properly understood, these truths help us, persons and community, to live ordinary lives of risky creative participation in the world for the sake of Christ.
Next, she defines the practice of ecclesiology like this:
The practice of ecclesiology consists of the extensive and intensive influence of a church, grounded in proper understanding. A properly functioning church (persons and community) moves into the world in Christ and by the Spirit, applying a rich diversity of skills to live boldly in the world while pointing to Christ.
Finally, she combines the two into practicclesiology (a term she coined):
In sum, practicclesiology is a manner of life together that understands and lives out deep connection to Christ and one another in order to dream and risk the seemingly impossible.
In reality, it is impossible to have a biblical theology that is not practical. A biblical theology is a practical theology.
Now, I understand why Jeff and Laura are concerned about the distinction between theoretical theology and practical theology. Discussions about this distinction and arguments as to which is more important have been going on for centuries and longer.
However, when we study Scripture, we find that it is impossible to separate our thinking about God (theoretical theology) from our life (practical theology). In fact, according to Scripture, the way we live demonstrates what we actually think about God more than what we say.
In 1 John, the apostle makes the bold statement that someone who does not demonstrate love to another person does not love God, regardless of what that person may say (1 John 3:17; 4:20). James writes something similar about faith – faith that does not demonstrate itself in our lives is not faith at all (James 2:14-26). Paul follows his most theoretical argument (Romans 1-11), with an exhortation to live in accordance with this understanding (Romans 12-16). As followers of Jesus Christ, an understanding of God that does not demonstrate itself in the way we live is not a biblical theology.
How does this work with the church?
People discuss and argue about many aspects of ecclesiology. For example, many argue about whether the Lord’s Supper (Communion) should be for local church members only (closed communion) or for any believer (open communion). Someone once tried to convince me of closed communion by arguing that we should only share the fellowship of the cup and the bread with those we know. However, as I pointed out, he cannot know all the thousands of people that he meets with every Sunday. His theoretical argument for “closed communion” was nullified by his own practice.
There are positive implications of our practical theology, and practical ecclesiology in particular. For example, last Sunday we were talking about times in our lives when we grow indifferent to God. One brother said, “This is one of the reasons that I love this church, and one of the reasons that I hate this church. I know that when we meet together, someone is going to ask me about my life and my relationship with God. This is exactly what I need, but its not always what I want, especially when I’m feeling indifferent toward God.” He’s learned that our ecclesiology is not simply theoretical… we don’t just talk about fellowship and discipleship and the “one anothers”. Instead, we try to live these things. Our ecclesiology is very practical.
In fact, besides this blog (and times when I meet with people who contacted me because of this blog), I rarely talk about “ecclesiology.” It is more important to live our ecclesiology (or any theology) than to talk about our ecclesiology (or any theology).
Someone who does not offer grace and forgiveness to others does not understand the grace of God regardless of what they say or teach about God’s grace. A person who does not accept others as they are does not understand how God has accepted us in Christ, regardless of what they say about salvation by grace and not by works. Someone who does not share his or her life with other brothers and sisters in Christ in intimate fellowship and community does not understand discipleship, regardless of what they profess about the importance of the Great Commission. Our theology is demonstrated in the way we live our lives, not in what we say or write.
This distinction between theoretical theology and practical theology is a false distinction as far as Scripture is concerned. According to Scripture, it is impossible to know God (theology) without it affecting your life (practice). So, a biblical theology is a practical theology. A theoretical theology that does not affect a person’s life is not a biblical theology.
Synthesis of Theology of Encouragement in Hebrews
Last week, I completed my paper for the PhD seminar in biblical theology. This will be my last paper – well, except for my prospectus and dissertation – for the PhD program at SEBTS. The title of this paper was “Theology of Encouragement in Hebrews”. (I’ve written about this research briefly in my posts “Theology of Encouragement in Hebrews“, “Peterson on Encouragement in Hebrews“, “Mutuality“, “A reminder of our priesthood from Hebrews“, and “Encouragement as Trajectory in Hebrews“.)
In general, there are two parts to a study in biblical theology: analysis and synthesis. Analysis includes exegeting relevant passages, placing them in their historical context and in the context of the book or section of Scripture. For this research, I primarily studied the passages in the Book of Hebrews that included the Greek terms for encouragement. Those terms are found in 3:13, 6:18, 10:25, 12:5, 13:19, and 13:22.
In the synthesis section of the paper, I attempted to combine the information found in the analysis section. In biblical theology, the information is gathered into categories and themes that represent the author’s intent and purpose in writing. This differs from systematic theology, which attempts to answer questions raised by modern culture.
I gathered the information concerning encouragement in Hebrews into these categories: 1) the trajectories of encouragement, 2) the sources of encouragement, and 3) the importance of examples in encouragement.
1. Trajectories of Encouragement
I’ve written about this previously in a post called “Encouragement as Trajectory in Hebrews“. Primarily, the author sees encouragement as both negative and positive trajectories, that is, moving away from undesirable actions and attitudes and moving towards desirable actions and attitudes.
2. Sources of Encouragement
Besides seeing a double trajectory in encouragement, the author also recognizes different sources of encouragement. The author expects his readers to be encouraged from Scripture (OT), from his own letter (Hebrews), and from each other.
3. Importance of Examples in Encouragement
The author also expects examples to offer encouragement to his readers. For Hebrews, examples are primarily found in Old Testament saints (Chapter 11, for example) and leaders (13:17). (Interestingly, the author of Hebrews does not offer his own life as an example, as Paul often does in his letters.)
A study in biblical theology does not normally address modern implications. However, for those of us who believe that Scripture is important and even authoritative in our lives, we must make the next step and decide how to apply biblical theology.
So, I will leave that exercise to you, my readers. How would you apply these three themes of encouragement from the Book of Hebrews? How do we encourage today using different trajectories? Should we still seek encouragement from Scripture and from one another? Are examples still important for encouragement? What other implications do you think this study has for us today?
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 5
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can be used by the biblical theologian in order to find the themes and categories of Scripture. In previous posts, I’ve examine the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. Also, I’ve looked at the methodologies used by several biblical theologians to determine themes in Scripture. Next, I introduced discourse analysis and discussed how several aspects of discourse analysis can be helpful to the biblical theologian. In this post, I examine the macro-structure of Romans 12-15 as a case study.
A CASE STUDY: ROMANS 12—15
Most commentators agree that Paul divides his letter to the church in Rome at the beginning of Chapter 12. This section begins with the apostle encouraging his readers to live in view of the teaching in the previous chapters. Paul uses cultic religious language (παÏαστῆσαι, θυσίαν, á¼Î³á½·Î±Î½, λατÏείαν – “to offer”, “sacrifice”, “holy”, “worship/service”) to introduce this section and tο set the tone for the remainder of the letter. As Cranfield explains, “[T]he true worship which God desires embraces the whole of the Christian’s life from day to day. It implies that any cultic worship which is not accompanied by obedience in the ordinary affairs of life must be regarded as false worship.” (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans Volume II, in The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979, 601.) Thus, Paul uses language of cultic worship which would be familiar to both Jewish and Gentile readers, but he uses the language in a new sense.
This cultic language becomes even more important when the reader reaches 15:15—16. In this passage, Paul once again uses cultic religious language (λειτουÏγὸν, ἱεÏουÏγοῦντα, Ï€ÏοσφοÏá½°, ἡγιασμένη – “worship/service”, “serve as priest”, “offering”, “make holy”), but in this case the cultic language refers to Paul himself and his own work. As Peterson says, “In Romans 15:16, Paul again describes his work using transformed worship terminology… Indeed, he is engaged on Christ’s behalf in discharging a ‘priestly’ ministry.” (“Worship,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, 861) The concentration of priestly and sacrificial language in these two passages (12:1 and 15:15—16) seems intentional, since the only other possible concentration refers to Israel, not to Christians (9:4). Thus, these two passages probably form an inclusio around this section of Scripture (12:1—15:33). The commentators listed above unanimously disagree with this conclusion, choosing instead to limit this section of the letter to 12:1—15:13. However, none of the commentators notice the literary connections between 12:1 and 15:16, indicating a possible structural connection as well. This macro-structure, then, would form a semantic unit, centered on the λατÏεία/λειτουÏγὸς word group (worship/service) which Paul repeats at the beginning and end of the section.
As an example of paragraph analysis, consider the second paragraph of this section, found in 12:3—8. The first colon (sentence) begins with the verb λέγω (I say – 12:3), which gives the following infinitives an imperatival (command) sense. (James D.G. Dunn. Romans 9—16, in Word Biblical Commentary. Word Books: Dallas, 1988, 720) Thus, this colon (sentence) could be divided into two with the two imperatives μὴ ὑπεÏφÏονεῖν (“not to think highly” )and φÏονεῖν (“to think”). These two imperatival infinitives (along with the corresponding infinitives in the colon) build prominence. In this colon (or colons), Paul warns his readers about the way they think about themselves. The second colon (ἒχομεν – “we have” – 12:4a) and the third colon (ἒχει – “they have” – 12:4b) combine to form a complementary reason for the first colon. Paul’s readers should not think too highly of themselves because there are many of them and they do not have the same function. (Leon Morris. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, 438-439) The fourth colon (á¼ÏƒÎ¼ÎµÎ½ – “we are” – 12:5—8) repeats Paul’s emphasis of unity among diversity in reverse order, spelling out the means of service through repetition that builds rhetorical prominence (three occurrences of εἴτε – “if” and four substantive participles – “the one teaching”, “the one encouraging”, “the one giving”, “the one showing mercy”).
Considering this paragraph, Paul sets the first colon and the last colon apart through the use of imperatival infinitives (the remaining verbs in this paragraph are present active indicatives) and repetition. Thus, Paul intends his readers to think correctly about themselves (not more highly than they should), and he says that they will demonstrate that they are thinking correctly about themselves by serving in the manner that God has graciously gifted them. By serving in the manner that God has gifted them (not in any other manner), they will also prove Paul’s reasoning: that there are many believers in the church in Rome, and they are all gifted differently, implying that all of their gifts are important.
Placed within the context of the macro-structure, Paul is telling his readers more than to think properly about themselves by serving each other through the grace gifts that God gives them. Since he centers the larger unit on service/worship, their prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and acts of mercy are forms of worship to God in the same way that the OT and pagan priests serve by offering sacrifices on altars. Similarly, Paul relates the Roman’s service to one another through their gifts to the manner in which he takes the gospel to the Gentiles: both are expressions of worship (priestly service) to God. When the Romans think rightly about themselves and others, and attempt to serve one another in the manner in which God gifts them (not attempting to serve in another way that may seem more important or valuable), they are worshiping God.
Certainly, the theologian could pull the theme of spiritual gifts out of the passage. However, in order to keep the theme within its context, it should remain in the realm of worship or service performed to God, not simply service to other people. Similarly, an analysis of the remaining paragraphs of Romans 12—15 reveals that Paul teaches the Romans about various ethical and life issues (hospitality, submission to government authorities, etc.). As long as the theologian remembers that Paul gives these instructions with worship as the central theme, he will keep the passages in their context. When the theologian analyzes the various sentences or paragraphs without considering the macro-structure, he is likely to miss the context as well.
Scobie does not mention Romans 12:3—8 in his section on worship, but he does refer to this section under the categories of the Spirit (especially related to “The Gifts of the Spirit”) (The Ways of Our God, 288) and service to one another (especially related to “Ministerial Functions”). (Ibid., 635) Marshall does group Romans 12:3—8 with the following paragraphs of Romans 12—15. However, he places them under the category of ethics (“Living the new life”) instead of worship. (New Testament Theology, 326) Again, it is true that this section of Romans deals with ethical issues, but the macro-structure reveals that these are primarily issues of worship. As the follower of Christ lives “ethically,” she is worshiping God. On the other hand, Peterson includes serving one another through spiritual gifts as a form of worship. He says, “Acceptable worship is the service rendered by those who truly understand the gospel and want to live out its implications in every sphere of life. In common parlance the word ‘service’ is so linked to Christian gatherings that the Bible’s teaching on the whole life as the context in which to offer ‘divine service’ is easily forgotten.” (“Worship,” 861. It is interesting to note that Peterson also recognizes the connection of Romans 15:16 and Paul’s use of “worship†terminology.) Depending on an author’s analysis (or lack of analysis) of the macro-structure of Romans 12—15, he either will or will not include spiritual gifts (and ethical living) as an act of worship to God.
CONCLUSION
Biblical theology begins in the realm of exegetical analysis. However, the exegesis must include analysis at the macro-structure level in order to determine an author’s theme. Discourse analysis adds tools and methods to traditional exegetical methods which can aid the theologian in interpreting the text above the sentence level. If the exegetical analysis remains at the sentence or even paragraph level, then the likelihood increases that the theologian will miss the biblical author’s main points and themes. Once the biblical theologian has determined the author’s theme by examining the macro-structure of the text, he is better able to organize the sub-themes.
As demonstrated by Scobie and Ladd and the case study from Romans 12—15, interpreters and theologians alike often miss the greater context of a passage. By using the tools and methods of discourse analysis, the theologian can better recognize that context and better organize his information according to the authors’ intentions. Certainly, discourse analysis will not solve all of the problems related to biblical theology. Similarly, discourse analysis will not guarantee that the theologian’s own tradition or interests will not drift into his analysis and synthesis. However, as the theologian analyzes the biblical material, including an analysis of the macro-structure will help him keep the information in biblical categories when he begins the synthesis step.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 4
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can be used by the biblical theologian in order to find the themes and categories of Scripture. In previous posts, I’ve examine the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. Also, I’ve looked at the methodologies used by several biblical theologians to determine themes in Scripture. In this post, I introduce discourse analysis and discuss how several aspects of discourse analysis can be helpful to the biblical theologian.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS TOOLS AND METHODS
In his discussion of issues related to biblical theology, Carson suggests that one challenge “is the daunting need for exegetes and theologians who will deploy the full range of weapons in the exegetical arsenal, without succumbing to methodological narrowness or faddishness.” (“Current Issues in Biblical Theology,” 34) He says that biblical theologians should utilize every exegetical tool, including grammatical and literary analysis. One set of “weapons in the exegetical arsenal” which may be helpful to biblical theologians are the tools of discourse analysis. As Carson says, these tools do not solve all of the problems encountered when the biblical theologian attempts to determine themes and categories for synthesis, but these tools can offer additional information on the structure and meaning of the passages at hand. Also, the methods and tools of discourse analysis are part of the exegete’s toolbox, to be used along side of morphological, grammatical, and syntactical analysis, as well as textual, literary, and rhetorical criticism.
Discourse analysis refers to “the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse.” (Michael Stubbs, Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983, 1) Guthrie defines discourse analysis as “a process of investigation by which one examines the form and function of all the parts and levels of a written discourse, with the aim of better understanding both the parts and the whole of that discourse.” (“Discourse Analysis,” in Interpreting the New Testament. Ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001, 255) Discourse analysis provides tools and methods to assist in the interpretation of discourses, either spoken or written. Since each book of the New Testament is presented as a coherent discourse between an author and his recipients, the linguistic tools of discourse analysis may provide additional information for the interpretation of New Testament texts beyond the information available from traditional micro-level interpretive methods.
The tools and methods of discourse analysis interrelate well with the goals of biblical theology, especially when the biblical theologian seeks themes within the texts, because biblical theology often seeks to analyze the macro-level (sentence level and above) of the text. As mentioned above, the background and interests of the theologian can hinder his objectivity. As Louw says,
All people have their own cultural, political, religious, and psycho-personal convictions. These convictions reinforce each other to impose a set of presuppositions so deeply rooted that we hardly question their validity. Our understanding of a text is thus enlarged beyond the word level by reading a text from preconceived perspectives. Even though people may agree that it is important to be aware of not misled by their subjective opinions, sociological, marxist, capitalist, catholic, calvinist, pentecostal, evangelical, and other orientations do offer a framework for reading a Bible text. Such a reading may be called a secondary reading of a text since it entails semantic reinterpretation of the vocabulary, the discourse structure, and the pragmatics of the text. (“Reading Text as a Discourse,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Ed. David Alan Black; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992, 17)
These “secondary readings” often remain undetected. Thus, tools and methods such as those offered by discourse analysis help theologians recognize “secondary readings.” As Louw continues, “Discourse analysis is not a recipe that can be applied to ensure a final reading of a passage, void of any subjective notions. It is rather a demonstration, a displaying or showing, first of all to oneself, how the text is being read, then giving account to others how the text is read and used to eventually come to an understanding of the text. In short, it is revealed reading; it charts the course of the reading process.” (Ibid., 18. This seems very similar to what Köstenberger describes as a “literary-theological reading” of the text.) Thus, analyzing Scripture as a discourse does not remove all subjectivity, but it does provide the theologian with a method of reading and analyzing the text which is one step removed from the theologian’s own background, tradition, and interest.
Discourse analysis depends upon the intrinsic coherence and structure of communication. (Peter Cotterel and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989, 230—31) This coherence and structure begins at the lowest levels of discourse: the phoneme, morpheme, and lexeme. Discourse analysis also depends upon grammar and syntax at the sentence (or colon) level, the paragraph level, the section level, and the level of the whole discourse. While introductory and intermediate grammars usually discuss phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, grammar, and syntax to some extent, few include details of coherence and structure above the sentence level.
Because most scholars study the language of the New Testament between the levels of the phoneme and the sentence, those who utilize the methods of discourse analysis primarily focus on the development of discourse above the sentence or clause level. (Stubbs, Discourse Analysis, 1) By studying the relationships between words and sentences, analysts can describe how the author developed his communication at the level of the paragraph, section, and even the discourse in its entirety. Therefore, the analyst must study the text in relation to the other parts of the discourse.
Louw suggests that discourse analysis begins with the colon. By definition, the colon represents a unit of thought that is characterized by certain grammatical structures, similar to a sentence in English. (Semantics of New Testament Greek. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982, 95) Primarily, a subject and an independent verb delineate a colon, whether the subject and verb is explicit or implicit. The colon will also include all lexemes that are dependent upon or modify the subject and verb. Colons relate to one another by content and by various grammatical structures at an intermediate level in the discourse. These related colons are called paragraphs. (Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press, 1996, 101) Similarly, paragraphs link together to form sections, which in turn form the entire discourse.
While Louw recommends analyzing a discourse beginning with the colon, or sentence, he also suggests that meaning is found at the paragraph level. He says,
Though the colon is the basic unit employed in discourse analysis, the most relevant unit for explication of the semantic content of a discourse is the paragraph, since it is the largest unit possessing a single unitary semantic scope. The colon, however, is the most convenient starting point for the analysis of a text, since paragraphs are generally too large to handle from the outset. Though the colon is the most tightly structured syntactic unit, the paragraph is rhetorically more significantly structured than the colon, and since any text must be analyzed both from the standpoint of its syntactic as well as its rhetorical form, both the colons and the paragraphs are of fundamental importance. (Semantics of New Testament Greek, 98)
Tuggy agrees that writers and speakers organize their thoughts into paragraphs in order to communicate their meaning. (“Semantic Paragraph Patterns: A Fundamental Communication Concept and Interpretive Tool,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Ed. David Alan Black; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992, 45—67) Outside the realm of biblical studies, but within the general field of linguistic analysis, Gee agrees that discourse should be analyzed beginning with the sentence level—which he calls “lines”—and that an author’s meaning is found at the paragraph level—which he calls “stanzas”:
The information embraced within a single line of speech is, of course, most often too small to handle all that the speaker wants to say. It is necessary usually to let several focuses of consciousness (which lines represent) scan a body of information larger than a single focus. This is to say that the speaker has larger chunks than single focuses of consciousness in mind, and that several such focuses may constitute a single unitary larger block of information… I will call such sets of lines devoted to a single topic, event, image, perspective, or theme a stanza. (An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Rutledge, 1999, 108—9)
Thus, we find that speakers and authors general form their themes and categories in paragraphs. By studying the paragraphs of Scripture, the biblical theologian can trace the themes of a book.
Meaning is also found above the paragraph level. Multiple paragraphs combine together to form sections (called units or macro-structures) or entire discourses. Just as sentences form the structure and argumentation for paragraphs, paragraphs form the structure and argument at the section and discourse level. Most exegetes (or commentators, at least) perform this type of analysis when they outline a book or section. As Guthrie says, “[W]hen, in processes of exegesis, we consider ‘literary context,’ for example, we are presupposing that thorough work has already been done on the macro-discourse level. Also, if we attempt to set a unit’s boundaries or outline a passage under consideration, we have engaged aspects of discourse analysis.” (“Discourse Analysis,” 260) The difference, however, is that discourse analysts find semantic information at the section or unit or discourse level, while exegetes sometimes only use their structural analysis as an outline for later exegesis, without considering meaning at the level of the macro-structure. Besides using boundary markers, authors also set apart different macro-structures using overt statements (such as the purpose statements of Luke 1:1—4, John 20:31, Hebrews 13:22, or Jude 3) or changes in content.
Sometimes, however, it is not enough to simply trace the themes found in the paragraphs or macro-structures of a document or discourse. Some sentences are more important than other sentences in a paragraph, and some paragraphs are more important than other paragraphs within a section, and some sections are more important than other sections within an entire discourse. Discourse analysts use the term “prominence” to indicate the relative importance of the sentences, paragraphs, and sections.
Determining prominence at the macro-structure level is important because it helps clarify an author’s focus and meaning. Reed describes prominence as follows:
One way to build thematic structure in discourse is by creating prominence (also known as emphasis, grounding, relevance, salience), i.e. by drawing the listener/reader’s attention to topics and motifs which are important to the speaker/author and by supporting those topics with other less significant material. (“Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis,” in Discourse analysis and other topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley Porter and D.A. Carson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 75—76)
Since the New Testament was not written with section titles or in outline format, the authors drew their readers’ attention to certain parts of their text using various grammatical and syntactical structures. Each of the grammatical and syntactical structures indicates a choice by the author. These choices represent elements of prominence included by the author for the benefit of his readers. The structures functioned to identify which parts of the text were more significant than other parts of the text.
Other terms often associated with prominence include focus, markedness, grounding, and theme. Westfall suggests that these terms are often used interchangeably, which causes confusion. (A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews. London: T&T Clark, 2005, 31) She suggests that analysts use the terms emphasis and focus to refer to prominence at the level of the colon. Markedness, according to Westfall, should refer to the amount of prominence associated with certain grammatical and linguistic structures such as verbal aspect, mode, tense, and voice. Finally, the grounding categories of background, foreground, and frontground refers to perceptual relationships in the text in relation to the standard pattern of grammar and syntax used by the author using Westfall’s categories.
The various aspects of prominence—focus, emphasis, markedness, grounding—work together to form zones of turbulence within the text. According to Longacre, the author marks a peak in his discourse by using various devices which are uncharacteristic of his normal patterns. (The Grammar of Discourse, 38) As the author stacks these uncharacteristic devices together, they function as zones of turbulence, identifying significant material within the discourse. By identifying these zones of turbulence, the analyst can identify the important material at the level of the colon, paragraph, section, and discourse.
Prominence functions at all levels of a text. However, prominence operates within a certain domain within the text. Thus, a prominent element within a colon may or may not be prominent within the paragraph, section, or discourse. Brown and Yule suggest that determining “relative prominence” helps the interpreter determine how the author “staged” his discourse. (Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 134) As Westfall explains:
The level of prominence for marked clauses or clause complexes must be determined not only by the identification of emphatic indicators, but also by recognizing their scope: the units which serve as their domain of prominence and their function in those units. The domain of a prominent sentence or entity may be determined in part by the cohesive ties and bonds that are formed with the surrounding co-text. Words, phrases or sentences can be prominent at the level of paragraph, section or discourse. (A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 35)
Therefore, once the analyst has identified a prominent element, he must also determine the domain of prominence for that element: the phrase, colon, paragraph, section, or discourse level.
At the phrase or clause level, the author primarily indicates prominence by placing a particular phrase or clause in an emphatic location within a colon. For example, an author can emphasize a word or clause by fronting the word or clause, that is, by placing the word or clause before its presupposed position. The fronted text continues to function grammatically and syntactically within a clause or colon. However, since the author has chosen to front the word or clause, it also functions in a more pragmatic role such as indicating topic or theme. (Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse. Dallas: Summer Institutes of Language, 2001, 66)
Above the phrase or clause level, other grammatical and syntactical structures indicate prominence between colons. For example, Porter concludes that verbal categories can be ranked with regard to aspect, tense, voice, and mood. (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 92—93) However, the markedness of the various verbal categories should be compared to the normal verb usage in the discourse, section, and paragraph. Thus, an author could mark a sentence as prominent within a paragraph if the aspect, tense, voice, or mood differs from the characteristic aspect, tense, voice, or mood used by the author within that paragraph or section. By using a different verbal category, the author could create a zone of turbulence that marks one colon as more significant within a paragraph.
Authors group paragraphs into sections that operate as a unit within a discourse. Just as paragraphs allow the author to develop his argument and theme within a section, the section itself allows the author to present his theme or themes across a variety of topics. Authors mark prominent paragraphs within a section using methods which are similar to the methods they would use to mark a prominent colon within a paragraph. Interpreters can identify prominent paragraphs by looking for extended zones of turbulence within the section.
As the first step in biblical theology, and as part of a complete exegesis of a passage, the theologian should analyze a particular text beginning at the sentence level, looking for prominent words or clauses within each sentence. These prominent words or clauses may give a clue to the author’s theme or argument. After analyzing the sentence, the theologian should analyze the paragraph, this time looking for prominent sentences, recognizing that the author may utilize different methods to mark a prominent sentence than the methods he used to mark a prominent word or clause. Finally, the theologian should analyze the paragraphs within a section in order to determine if one or more of the paragraphs are prominent.
Once the theologian has determined the prominent paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and words, he is better able to determine the author’s theme in that section. Plus, he has the added benefit of having a specific method of determining that theme, thereby reducing the likelihood that his own background, tradition, or interests will affect his decision. Also, by analyzing the text at this level, the theologian will be able to determine subthemes and how those subthemes relate to the main theme of the paragraph, section, or entire discourse. These subthemes may be synthesized with similar themes in other passages of Scripture, but the theologian should always keep in mind the greater context which is found in the section or paragraph level of the text.
In the next post in this series, I’ll examine the macro-structure of Romans 12-15 as a case study to demonstrate how the tools of discourse analysis can help the biblical theologian determine the themes of Scripture.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 3
In this series, I examine how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can help the biblical theologian determine themes and categories in Scripture. In the previous posts of this series, I’ve looked at the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. In this post, I examine the methods used by several biblical theologians to find themes in Scripture.
THEMES AND CATEGORIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
The distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology does not intimate that one discipline is more important than the other discipline, but instead appreciates the complementary nature of the two disciplines. The theologian who distinguishes between the historical and descriptive nature of biblical theology and the contemporary nature of systematic theology should also recognize the importance of taking a different approach to categorizing the text. As Poythress points out, “[I]t is understandable that the difference in aims [between biblical theology and systematic theology] should sometimes result in different kinds of topical arrangements.” (“Kinds of Biblical Theology,” 139)
However, recognizing the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology does not prevent contemporary or historical themes (i.e., systematic themes) from slipping into biblical theologies. Several scholars warn of this possibility. For example, Kaiser warns:
Systematic theology has traditionally organized its approach around topics and themes such as God, humanity, sin, Christ, salvation, the church, and last things. By contrast, biblical theology has, more often than not, been a discipline in search of a mission and a structure—often falling into the same topical and structural tracks gone over by systematic theology, even though it severely criticized and stood aloof from systematic theology, claiming it had imposed an external grid (derived from philosophy or the like) on its material. (The Promise-Plan of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008, 18)
Thus, even while biblical theologians recognize the importance of following the themes laid out in Scripture, they often fall into the trap of returning to “traditional” themes.
Likewise, Osborne says, “The interpreter must at all times be aware of the fallacy of reading subsequent theological issues into the text.” (Hermeneutical Spiral, 266) He later cautions that the problem is primarily one of language and hermeneutics. (Ibid., 276) Thus, for Osborne, the biblical theologian must ask questions concerning language and semantics as he gathers the biblical information into themes and categories. Only then can the biblical theologian synthesize those various themes.
Marshall also cautions that theologians tend to group biblical material into familiar and comfortable categories. He states, “This is to take over an existing plan such as is found in a textbook of systematic theology but without any firm evidence that this framework was in the minds of any of the New Testament authors.” (New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004, 24) Instead of using an “existing plan,” Marshall urges the theologian to seek the plan of the New Testament author.
Similarly, Rosner says that the biblical theologian must allow the texts of Scripture to set the agenda:
The task of biblical theology is to present the teaching of the Bible about God and his relation to the world in a way that lets the biblical texts set the agenda. This goal is achieved by allowing them to serve as the very stuff of inductive study and by reading the books more or less in their historical sequence. In other words, biblical theology subscribes to the primacy of the text; the interpretive interest of biblical theology corresponds as closely as possible to what the text is about. (“Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP 2000, 5)
At this point, it seems that Osborne, Marshall, and Rosner are all talking about exegesis—the first step of biblical theology. Questions of language, interpretation of the thoughts of the author, and interpreting texts points to the importance of exegetical methodologies that will aid the biblical theologians in looking past “existing plans” in order to determine the New Testament authors’ frameworks. But, what methodologies can offer this aid?
When Scobie laid out the framework for his biblical theology, he also recognized the danger of following traditional schemes. He warns against “imposing an alien pattern” and concludes, “[S]o far as is humanly possible, the structure employed should be the one that arises out of the biblical material itself.” (The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 81) What methodology does Scobie utilize to ensure that his structure arises from the text of Scripture? He explains his methodology as follows:
The procedure that seems to offer the most promise and the least risk of distorting the biblical material is that of identifying a limited number of major biblical themes, grouping around them associated subthemes, and tracing each theme and subtheme through the OT, then through the NT, following the scheme of proclamation/promise: fulfillment/consummation. The selection of themes is obviously of crucial importance. In point of fact, the major themes that are proposed here were arrived at very largely through an extensive study of the numerous proposals that have been made by biblical scholars, especially for a so-called center or focal point of BT. (Ibid., 93—94)
So, while arguing that the best procedure is one that arises from the biblical texts, Scobie finds his themes by studying proposals made by other biblical theologians. Certainly all of those biblical theologians claim that their themes arise from the text of Scripture. In fact, most of them claim that their theme is the central focus of Scripture. Scobie himself recognizes that these claims often arise, not from Scripture, but from the theologian fitting the text into a predefined mold. Scobie says, “[T]he various proposals that have been made obviously have a lot of merit and, taken together, form the most useful guide to a multithematic approach.” (Ibid., 94) Scobie decides that while the themes do not have “a lot of merit” on their own, they do have merit when taken together. Unfortunately, his methodology does not aid the biblical theologian in ensuring that the themes and categories arise from Scripture instead of being imposed on Scripture.
In Central Themes in Biblical Theology, the editors, Hafemann and House, explain that the purpose of the book is to explore some of the biblical themes. They write, “We did not determine the seven most important themes in the Bible and assign them to one another. Individual interests were allowed latitude, but we nonetheless found that the themes the participants chose provided a solid sample of key biblical ideas.” (Central Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, 16) The various authors chose to examine the themes of “The Covenant Relationship”, “The Commands of God”, “The Atonement”, “The Servant of the Lord”, “The Day of the Lord”, “The People of God”, and “The History of Redemption.” But, what methodologies were used to determine that these were “central” themes of biblical theology, and what methodologies were used to examine each theme across the corpus of Scripture? Those methodologies remain undetermined. As the editors explain, “Each contributor was allowed to pursue the chosen theme across the Scriptures in the manner they deemed best, but they all pursued that theme in a way calculated to demonstrate biblical wholeness.” (Ibid., 17) It is possible, and perhaps probable given the themes examined in this book, that different authors analyze the same passages of Scripture in order to synthesize their different themes across Scripture. It seems problematic to approach biblical theology without a methodical approach to determine the “central themes” (that is, each contributor choosing a theme based upon their own “individual interests”) and without a common methodology to examine these themes.
Ladd, on the other hand, uses a methodology in his New Testament theology. However, as Poythress points out, Ladd’s methodology is controlled by his interest in inaugurated eschatology. Poythress says,
[Ladd] saw inaugurated eschatology as a common theme through all the NT books. So, in imitation of biblical theology, should one organize systematic theology using the theme of inaugurated eschatology? But Ladd could equally have claimed that fellowship with Christ, or the resurrection of Christ, or Christ as God and man, or the doctrine of God, was a common theme. He made inaugural eschatology primary not because it was the only possibility, but probably because biblical theology in its historical orientation had a keen interest in NT conceptualizations of redemptive-historical epochs. And these compartmentalizations complement the traditional topical interests of systematic theology more than would an organization of the material by traditional topics. (“Kinds of Biblical Theology,” 139—40)
As Poythress points out, when a theologian has an interest in a particular area, this interest can manipulate how the theologian analyzes and synthesizes the biblical data.
Köstenberger also utilizes a more methodical approach for his theology of John. First, he recognizes that the structure of John’s Gospel and his Epistles reveal much of the theology and meaning contained in these writings. (A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Forthcoming, 296) Next, Köstenberger suggests a “literary-theological reading” of the Johnanine material which follows the author’s structural framework. He says,
By “literary-theological reading” is meant a careful reading… Engaging in this close narrative reading of John’s Gospel and Letters before attempting to present the major Johannine theological themes in Part 3 [the synthesis of the biblical material] is vital, because such a literary-theological reading ensures that the presentation of John’s theology is properly grounded in a contextual, narrative apprehension of the respective documents. Methodologically, biblical theology is inextricably wedded to a study of the writings in question in their historical and literary settings. (Ibid., 309)
Thus, unlike Scobie, Köstenberger does not determine his themes by reading other biblical theologies, but by reading the text of Scripture. He finds the themes of John’s Gospel in the author’s purpose statement (20:30—31), the introduction to the Gospel (1:1—18), and the introduction to part two of the Gospel (13:1—3). The benefit of this approach is that Köstenberger discovers themes in the prominent sections of the book, removing some of the subjectivity.
Without using the name specifically, Köstenberger follows the methods of discourse analysis by seeking prominent passages of Scripture and finding and author’s themes from those passages. The tools and methods of discourse analysis can aid the biblical theologian because they are exegetical tools focused on the structure and meaning of the text and because they help the theologian determine important macro-level information.
In the next post in this series, I will present an introduction to discourse analysis, and examine how some of the tools of discourse analysis can be utilized to help the biblical theologian determine the themes and categories of Scripture.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion