Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 2
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically, several tools of discourse analysis) can help the biblical theologian determine the various themes of Scripture. In the last post, I wrote about the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. In this post, I’m going to examine the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
While recognizing several different (and sometimes competing) definitions of biblical theology, Carson also identifies several unifying aspects. One of these aspects is the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. While there are many similarities between these two disciplines, Carson suggests one major difference:
[Systematic Theology] asks and answers primarily atemporal questions. In some measure it deals with the categories established by historical theology; at the same time its priorities and agenda are carefully constructed so as, ideally, to address the contemporary age at the most crucial junctures. This means, inter alia, that it often includes material at a second or third or fourth order of remove from Scripture, as it engages, say, philosophical and scientific questions not directly raised by the biblical texts themselves. These elements constitute part of its legitimate mandate.
Not so biblical theology. It is deeply committed to working inductively from the biblical text; the text itself sets the agenda… [A] biblical theologian, whether working on, say, the Pauline corpus, or on the entire canon, must in the first instance seek to deploy categories and pursue an agenda set by the text itself.(“Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective,” BBR 5 (1995): 29)
Thus, according to Carson, the primary difference between systematic theology and biblical theology lies in the locus of the themes and categories of the organization of its synthesis. Systematic theologians organize their information around historically traditional categories or around contemporary questions and concerns. On the other hand, biblical theologians attempt to organize their information around the categories found in the text of Scripture or around questions raised in the text.
Carson was not the first scholar to recognize this distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology. For example, over two hundred years ago, in his inaugural address, Gabler distinguished biblical theology from dogmatic theology. While his plan was different than Carson’s, Gabler did suggest that biblical theology described the views of the biblical authors while dogmatic theology used reason to propose present-day beliefs. (Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Kinds of Biblical Theology,” WTJ 70 (2008), 129—30)
Similarly, about a hundred years after Gabler, Schlatter encouraged the biblical theologian—the New Testament theologian, in particular—to express the theology of the biblical authors, not the theology of the scholar, nor the theology of his tradition, nor the theology of his time period. (The History of the Christ. Trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, 17—18) Schlatter was concerned that the theologian would begin with his own categories or questions. He said, “Our main interest should be the thought as it was conceived by them and the truth that was valid for them.” (Ibid., 18) So, for Schlatter also, the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology lies primarily in the way the material is categorized or organized. The biblical theologian should appropriate his themes from the text, not from contemporary society or from traditional categories.
In his A Theology of the New Testament, Ladd denotes the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology as a defining factor of biblical theology. He writes, “Biblical theology is that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology.” (A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, 25) Analyzing and synthesizing biblical information in its historical setting and not for contemporary relevance is a difficult exercise. However, this distinction is important for defining biblical theology.
Fanning also explicitly clarifies the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology. He says,
[B]iblical theology seeks to systematize the teaching of the Bible regarding God and his ways, but the organizing principles are different. Systematic theology consciously attempts to express the truth of God in ways relevant to and understandable by the contemporary culture. The categories and thought forms of biblical theology are often not readily grasped by present-day audiences. The job of systematics is to recast biblical ideas about God and his ways in terms that communicate these truths faithfully in today’s world and call people to respond in faith and obedience. (“Theological Analysis,” 284)
As Fanning also points out, the major distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology is the “organizing principles” behind each discipline. The biblical theologian must carefully navigate the biblical text in order to determine the categories and themes of this material. While the systematic theologian can “recast” the biblical material in terms and categories that communicate to people today, the biblical theologian does not have this luxury. He must remain with the patterns and categories of the biblical authors, even and especially if those themes are unfamiliar to the theologian or his audience.
Biblical theology plays an important role in the bridge between biblical exegesis and systematic theology. Beginning with the interpretation of passages, the biblical theologian must find his information and his categories in the text. Thus, exegesis is important for both content and organization, so that the theologian ensures (as much as possible) that he does not introduce foreign concepts into the analysis and synthesis of the biblical passages. The biblical theologian should look for exegetical tools and methods to help him locate biblical themes, because recognizing the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology is not enough to guarantee that those foreign concepts do not drift into the biblical theologian’s work.
In the next article of this series, I’ll examine how several biblical theologians have identified scriptural themes.
————————————————————
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 1
A few weeks ago, in a post called “Macro-structure analysis“, I said that I was researching a paper for a biblical theology seminar examining how discourse analysis could help biblical theologians. In this series, I’m going to present some of that research.
Biblical theologians often examine themes across a book, a group of books, or the entire corpus of Scripture. The selection of themes is therefore very important to the work of biblical theology. If the theologian chooses categories of organization that align with the authors’ themes, then his synthesis will be more in line with the biblical information. If, on the other hand, the theologian’s categories do not align with the themes of the biblical authors, then his findings will be suspect. Any tools or methodologies that help the theologian discover the themes from Scripture will prove beneficial.
Biblical theology begins as an exegetical discipline. Furthermore, the primary difference between systematic theology and biblical theology lies in the manner that the information is categorized. Discourse analysis offers exegetical tools and methods to help the theologian recognize important information at the macro-level of the text and, therefore, organize that information according to the text.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND EXEGESIS
In his groundbreaking monograph, Biblical Theology, Vos places the discipline of biblical theology within the framework of exegesis, or exegetical theology, as he calls it. He says,
Exegetical Theology in the wider sense comprises the following disciplines… d) the study of the actual self-disclosures of God in time and space which lie back of even the first committal to writing of any Biblical document, and which for a long time continued to run alongside of the inscripturation of revealed material; this last-named procedure is called the study of Biblical Theology. (Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954, 13)
Vos places biblical theology within the same discipline as exegesis, introduction, and canonical studies. Thus, biblical theology is connected to the study of the text of Scripture, while remaining a theological discipline. While the biblical theologian desires to move beyond exegesis of individual passages in order to synthesize the information in a theology of a book, or an author, or a corpus, he must begin with those passages.
According to Osborne, there is an interdependent relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. He says, “There is a two-way relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. The former provides the categories and overall scriptural unity behind one’s interpretation of individual passages, while exegesis provides the data collated into a biblical theology. In other words, the two are interdependent.” (The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: IVP, 1991, 165) Furthermore, Osborne states that the biblical theologian remains within the “sphere of exegetical research” while taking a step away from the practice of exegesis. (Ibid., 263-64) Thus, the line between biblical theology and exegesis is often blurred since the two disciplines depend upon one another.
Vanhoozer also recognizes that biblical theology depends upon the task of exegesis. He explains, “The viability of biblical theology as a discipline depends on the ability to interpret the biblical texts ‘on their own terms’.” (“Exegesis and Hermeneutics,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, 52) Again, according to Vanhoozer, exegesis of the biblical texts begins the task of biblical theology. Without proper and complete exegesis, the biblical theologian cannot perform his task suitably. As such, the analytical work of the biblical theologian must remain with the “sphere of exegetical research” (to use Osborne’s phrase).
Fanning takes this process further by explaining that exegesis is the first step in the work of the biblical theologian. He explains, “Practical steps for doing biblical theology are difficult to lay out, since it pervades the whole process of exegesis in some sense. But we could break it down into two broad stages, the analytical and the synthetic. In the analytical stage we are probing and exploring the text’s theological significance and coherence throughout the exegetical process.” (“Theological Analysis: Building Biblical Theology,” in Interpreting the New Testament Text. Ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning; Wheaton: Crossway, 2006, 287) While the biblical theologian must think “theologically” about the text throughout the process, the first step remains in the realm of exegesis. Fanning continues, “We must keep theological questions in mind at every step: textual criticism, background studies, grammar, overview and flow of the argument, lexical studies, use of OT in NT, genre considerations, and validation.” (Ibid.) While the biblical theologian thinks “theologically,” he does so in the beginning of his research while analyzing texts, backgrounds, grammars, structures, and other elements of exegesis. Of course, the biblical theologian desires to move beyond analysis in order to synthesize different texts into theological themes. So, again, biblical theology and exegesis remain inexorably linked to one another in an interdependent relationship. (Ibid., 281)
Gamble also concludes that biblical theology is intricately connected to biblical exegesis. He says:
Biblical theology as a separate discipline has tried to keep its theologizing based upon grammatical-historical exegesis. That means theology is within the historical, linguistic and social structure of Scripture. Thus, biblical theology is intimately bound to solid biblical exegesis. The biblical text is comprehended within its proper historic and literary framework. As hinted at earlier, without biblical theology, competent exegesis is impossible. (“The Relationship Between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” in Always Reforming. Ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Downers Grove: IVP, 2006, 223)
Thus, according to Gamble, biblical theology is not possible without proper exegesis, which includes understanding the text in its historic and literary context. In the same way, “competent exegesis†is not possible without a theological—specifically, a biblical theological—understanding of the text. Thus, there remains a complementary or interdependent relationship—between exegesis and biblical theology.
Therefore, when considering the relationship between exegesis and biblical theology, extreme care must be taken. It is difficult to separate the two disciplines cleanly. Biblical theology must begin with exegesis, and thus the biblical theologian must be cognizant of the grammar, syntax, structure, semantics, historical background, and literary framework of a text. In fact, this type of analysis (i.e., exegesis) is the first step of biblical theology, and should be completed adequately before the biblical theologian begins to synthesize the biblical information.
In the next article in this series, I’ll examine the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology.
————————————————————
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
Theology of Encouragement in Hebrews
I was excited to get back my first paper in Biblical Theology. I wrote about using discourse analysis (macro-structure analysis) in biblical theology. My professor said that it was well conceived and well presented. This is a very good thing, because I plan to use this methodology in my dissertation.
Now, I’m preparing for my next paper in Biblical Theology. This paper will also be part of my dissertation. I’m looking at the theology of “encouragement” in the Book of Hebrews. “Encouragement” shows up in several important sections of the Book, perhaps the most important being the author’s own statement about the purpose of this book:
I appeal to [encourage] you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation [encouragement], for I have written to you briefly. (Hebrews 13:22 ESV)
Here are the other passages in Hebrews that includes the terms for “encouragement”:
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort [encourage] one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3:12-13 ESV)
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (Hebrews 6:17-18 ESV)
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)
And have you forgotten the exhortation [encouragement] that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. (Hebrews 12:5 ESV)
I urge [encourage] you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner. (Hebrews 13:19 ESV)
These verse include the “encourage”/”encouragement” word group. Certainly, these are not the only passages in the book of Hebrews that talk about encouragement, but these passages will be the beginning of my research.
I will study each passage in its immediate context and within the context of the book as a whole (macro-structure analysis). From this analysis, I plan to put together (synthesize) a theology of encouragement for the entire book.
From the beginning, it is interesting to note the range of the uses of these terms in Hebrews. Also, it is interesting to note that God, the author, and the readers are all responsible for encouragement.
I’ll keep you posted about my research, and will probably include a few interesting quotes from time to time.
Graeme Goldsworthy lectures on biblical theology
Graeme Goldsworthy delivered three lectures on biblical theology at Southern Seminary last week. You can find links to the lectures at “Between Two Worlds“.
I’ve only listened to the first lecture, which is titled “The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology”. If the other two lectures are anything like the first, then these three lectures will be very important for those who are interested in biblical theology or exegesis, and probably those interested in systematic theology as well.
Here are two definitions that Goldsworthy gives at the beginning of the first lecture:
Gospel: The gospel is God’s solution to how to justify the ungodly… The gospel is God’s message of the person and work of Jesus testified to by the Old Testament and coming to its climax in the exaltation of Jesus.
Biblical Theology: Biblical theology is the study of how every text in the Bible relates to every other text in the Bible. It is the study of the matrix of divine revelation. At the heart of the gospel is the person of Jesus Christ. He is the word of God come in the flesh. The nature of the gospel is such that it demands that it be the center of the biblical message. Biblical theology is, then, the study of how every text in the Bible relates to Jesus and his gospel.
Any comments on these definitions?
Brevard S. Childs
According to a report from Yale Divinity School, Brevard S. Childs passed away on Saturday, June 23, 2007. Some of you recognize his name and know his impact on biblical studies and biblical theology – my current field of study. Others may not recognize the name “Brevard Childs”.
In his 1970 book Biblical Theology in Crisis (and in many books that followed) Childs suggested an approach to biblical theology that was revolutionary for the era of critical scholarship: biblical theology must begin with the canonical texts. Modern books on biblical theology almost always begin with or interact with Childs on this point.
While I have not read Childs broadly (yet), I recognize his influence on the writers that I have read. Even though I have not agreed with Childs on everything that I’ve read (if scholars agreed with one another, then we would put ourselves out of a job…), I appreciate his insistence on beginning the study of biblical theology from the texts themselves.