1 intro theological interpretation of scripture

THE THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURELECTURE ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction:

How does “Biblical Theology” differ from

“Systematic” theology?

- Systematic (aka: “dogmatic”) Theology:

‣An ordered account of Christian doctrine and

practice, which engages with the Scriptures as

illumined by tradition, reason, and experience.

‣Often has categories like:

๏God, Humanity, Christ, Sin, Atonement

Introduction:



- Biblical Theology:

‣The discipline evades simple definition because it

has meant so many different things.

๏Klink and Lockett:

KLINK AND LOCKETT:

“BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

HAS BECOME A

CATCHPHRASE, A WAX

NOSE THAT CAN MEAN

ANYTHING FROM THE

HISTORICAL CRITICAL

METHOD…TO A

THEOLOGICAL

INTERPRETATION OF

SCRIPTURE THAT IN

PRACTICE APPEARS TO

LEAVE HISTORY OUT

OF THE EQUATION

ALTOGETHER.”

Introduction:



- Biblical Theology:

‣The discipline evades simple definition because it

has meant so many different things.

Thus we must trace the history of the term and movement…

Introduction:

A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):

- J.P. Gabler first used the term in 1787

‣Distinguished his rationalist project from the

church’s “dogmatic” biases.

‣Rejected the connection between OT and NT.

Introduction:


- In 1892, Geerhardus Vos set forth a more

orthodox definition.

GEERHARDUS VOS(1862-1949)

FOUNDER OF

“CALVINIST BIBLICAL

THEOLOGY”

BORN IN

NETHERLANDS.

TAUGHT AT

PRINCETON.

Introduction:


- Geerhardus Vos:

‣Both Biblical and Systematic theology are (or,

should be) equally based in the Bible.

‣ “BT draws a line of development [historically]

while Systematic Theology draws a circle.”

‣The emphasis in BT is upon constructing a

“narrative” of God’s work in the world.

These three statements will guide our own use of BT.

Introduction:


- Geerhardus Vos:

‣Yet…Vos’ influence was largely confined to

conservative Reformed circles.

Introduction:


- Karl Barth

KARL BARTH(1886-1968)

SWISS-GERMAN

GREATEST

THEOLOGIAN OF THE

20TH CENTURY

Introduction:


- Karl Barth

‣Barth’s break with liberalism came with his

Commentary on Romans: Der Römerbrief (1922).

‣Now a pastor, he found that his higher critical view

of Scripture left him with nothing to preach.

‣Many complain, however, that Barth left Romans

(i.e. history / original context) far behind in his so-

called “commentary.”

Introduction:


- Today BT is characterized by a diversity of

approaches.

‣Klink and Lockett (2012) provide

a spectrum:

Different types of “Biblical Theology” Today

[Klink and Lockett, 2012]

Introduction:

Today BT is characterized by a diversity of

approaches.

1.Historical Description (Krister Stendahl)

KRISTER STENDAHL(1921-2008)

HARVARD DIVINITY

FAMOUS ESSAY: “PAUL

AND THE

INTROSPECTIVE

CONSCIENCE OF THE

WEST.”

JAMES BARR(1924-2006)

SCOTTISH OT

SCHOLAR

Introduction:


approaches.


• BT tells what texts meant “back then,” Systematic

theo. tells us what they mean now.

• The goal is to reconstruct the “theologies” of the

Biblical books, not to meld them together.

Introduction:


approaches.


• PRO: Avoids Anachronism.

• CON: Harms Biblical unity (esp. NT / OT); makes

application difficult.

• More open to higher criticism.

Introduction:


approaches.

2.Redemptive History:

• Example: D.A. Carson

D.A. CARSON(B. 1946)

REFORMED BIBLICAL

THEOLOGIAN;

TRINITY EVANGELICAL

DIVINITY SCHOOL.

Introduction:


approaches.


• Carson sees BT as a “Bridge Discipline” between

Exegesis and Systematic Theology.

• A Helpful (but imperfect) diagram.

EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG

Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

Carson’s Diagram

on Biblical Theology as a

“Bridge Discipline”


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

Carson’s Diagram



Tends to

focus on

analysis

of

passage

s &

themes


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

Carson’s Diagram



Tends to

focus on

analysis

of

passage

s &

themes

Tends to

focus on

synthesi

s of

passage

s &

themes


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

Carson’s Diagram



Tends to

focus on

analysis

of

passage

s &

themes

Tends to

focus on

synthesi

s of

passage

s &

themes

What did

Luther,

Calvin,

or

Augustin

e say?


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

Carson’s Diagram



Tends to

focus on

analysis

of

passage

s &

themes

Tends to

focus on

synthesi

s of

passage

s &

themes

Putting

all this

together:

What

should

we

believe?

What did

Luther,

Calvin,

or

Augustin

e say?


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY

The diagram is admittedly Imperfect (or naive) because:

1. Exegesis is never done in a presuppositional vacuum.

(Hence the value of Postmodern critics…[a brief overview])

Carson’s Diagram



POST-MODERNISMJ-F. LYOTARD:

“INCREDULITY

TOWARD

METANARRATIVES.”

“TRUTH” IS BUT A

FUNCTION OF POWER

PLAYS.

JACQUES DERRIDA“DECONSTRUCTION”

UNMASKING DRIVING

MOTIVES (POWER

PLAYS) BEHIND TRUTH-

CLAIMS VIA A

“HERMENEUTIC OF

SUSPICION.”


Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY



2. The meaning of BT has been variously defined.

Carson’s Diagram




Y

HISTORICAL

THEOLOGY

SYSTEMATIC

THEOLOGY



2. The meaning of BT has been variously defined.

Carson’s Diagram



With these caveats in mind, the diagram is still very helpful.

Introduction:


approaches.


• Carson sees BT as a “Bridge Discipline” between

Exegesis and Systematic Theology.

• A Helpful (but imperfect) diagram.

Introduction:


approaches.

2.Redemptive History (D.A. Carson):

• Carson often stresses so-called inter canonical

themes (e.g. King and Kingdom; Image and

Likeness; Marriage and Faithfulness).

‣Jesus becomes the fulfillment of these themes.

Introduction:


approaches.

2.Redemptive History (D.A. Carson):

• Pro: This approach pays close attention to exegesis

while also attempting to read the Bible as God’s

inspired progressive Revelation.

• Con: Carson may underestimate the extent to which

his “exegesis” is itself influenced by theological

presuppositions (especially Reformed ones).

Introduction:


approaches.

3.Worldview Story

• Example: N.T. Wright

N.T. WRIGHT(B. 1948)

NT SCHOLAR;

ANGLICAN BISHOP

(RET.);

UNIVERSITY OF ST.

ANDREWS (UK).

Introduction:


approaches.

3.Worldview Story

• It is from Wright that we will take our notion of a

“Biblical Meta-narrative”

• “A script in search of actors.”

• Creation-Fall-Israel-Jesus-Church-New Creation

Introduction:


approaches.

3.Worldview Story

• Pro: The attempt to see the Bible as a continuous

story helps the reader to see how the various bits of

Biblical material fit together in a coherent whole.

• Con: Some question Wright’s sweeping

generalizations and his starting point in history

rather than “dogma” or faith.

Introduction:


approaches.

4.Canonical Approach:

• Example: Brevard Childs

BREVARD CHILDS(1923-2007)

OT SCHOLAR; YALE;

PIONEERED

“CANONICAL

CRITICISM”

Introduction:


approaches.

4.Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs):

• While higher criticism tried to separate the

“authentic” bits of Scripture from the later redactions

(i.e. edits), a canonical approach assumes

redaction, while also viewing the finished product

(the canon) as that which we must study and live by.

Introduction:


approaches.

4.Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs):

• Pro: This blunts the liberal critique by

acknowledging redaction (etc.) while avoiding the

destruction of the canon itself. It also seeks to listen

to and deal with the whole Bible.

• Con: Is this mix of liberalism and conservatism

sustainable?

Introduction:


approaches.

5.Theological Interpretation (Francis Watson):

FRANCIS WATSON(B. 1956)

BRITISH NT SCHOLAR

AND THEOLOGIAN;

INFLUENCED BY BARTH

UNIVERSITY OF

DURHAM.

Introduction:


approaches.


• Fuses theology (tradition) and Biblical studies.

• The Bible is exclusively for the church.

• Precedence is given to the NT in interpreting OT.

• Historical Criticism is largely eschewed.

Introduction:


approaches.


• Pro: The ability to fuse disciplines and deal with the

text as inspired is laudatory.

• Cons: Does this do justice to history? Is the mixture

of disciplines too ad hoc (doing justice to none)?

Introduction:


approaches.

- Review:

While “Type 3” will largely form the basis for this course,

we will also borrow from other approaches.

Introduction:

Questions?

Covenantal Systems:

Intro:

- One of the key tasks of Biblical Theology is how to

relate the New and Old Testament.

‣ i.e. God made promises to Israel that do not seem

to have been fulfilled (at least not literally).

‣God also made various “covenants” throughout

history, and the commands in the OT differ from the

requirements in the NT (e.g. circumcision).

Various covenantal systems address such issues in different ways

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism

- Founded by John Nelson Darby

- Popularized in America by D.L. Moody (MBI)

- Affirmed by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Ref. Bible

JOHN NELSON DARBY(1800 - 1882)

BRITISH BIBLE

TEACHER;

FATHER OF

DISPENSATIONALISM

D.L. MOODY(1837 - 1899)

CHICAGO BASED

EVANGELIST

C.I. SCOFIELD(1843 - 1921)

PRODUCED THE

SCOFIELD REFERENCE

BIBLE WITH

DISPENSATIONALIST

HEADINGS AND NOTES

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism

- Founded by John Nelson Darby

- Popularized in America by D.L. Moody (MBI)

- Codified by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Ref. Bible

- An admittedly biased historical overview:

‣https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_cVXdr8mVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_cVXdr8mVs

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism

- Four Characteristics:

1.Literal reading of Scripture (esp. prophecy)

2.“Israel” promises are not fulfilled by the church

๏Israel remains God’s special people.

๏God’s “Israel plan” has essentially been put “on hold” until the end of history.

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism


3.The Millennium (Rev. 20) is crucial as the time when God’s “Israel promises” will be fulfilled.

๏Rapture theology

4.The Bible evidences a series of “dispensations” in which God asks for somewhat different things.

• Suggestions regarding these dispensations:

Suggestions regarding dispensations:

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism


4.The Bible evidences a series of “dispensations” in which God asks for somewhat different things.

• Suggestions regarding these dispensations:

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism

- Positives

• Dispensationalists tend toward a high view of Scripture.

• Virtually everyone recognizes at least two “dispensations” (Old Covenant / New Covenant).

• If a literal reading of certain texts is correct, then so is (at least parts of) Dispensationalism.

- E.g. 1 Thess. 4; Romans 11; Rev. 20

Covenantal Systems:

Dispensationalism

- Negatives / Cautions

• It’s New (and, largely, an American) development.

• It may fail to account for Biblical symbolism/metaphor.

• It risks the appearance of a “different God” in each dispensation.

• Only a small portion of the Bible is actually “for us.”

- E.g. Jesus’ words are for the Jews; Epistles…for us.

Covenantal Systems:

Progressive Dispensationalism:

- An attempt to soften Classical Dispensationalism.

- While ethnic Israel still has a future, the church is a fulfillment of OT promises to bless Gentiles, and not merely a parenthesis in God’s “Israel plan.”

- Prophecy can have a “duality” of fulfillments.

- Some NT “Israel” passages refer to church

- Often associated with Dallas Theological Seminary.

Covenantal Systems:

Covenant Theology (Reformed):

- Uses the idea of “covenant” as an organizing principle.

- God established a “covenant of works” with Adam, the federal head of all humanity.

‣Hos. 6.7: “Like Adam they transgressed the covenant”

- The Mosaic Law (Old Covenant) is fulfilled by Christ.

‣Those saved are saved by “works” (works of Christ)

- New Covenant is one of grace (trusting Christ’s work).

Covenantal Systems:


- Hinges on the idea of Federal Headship—all humanity is united with Adam, our head.

‣Adam’s obedience would have secured our salvation.

‣Adam’s sin did justify our damnation.

How you are united with the Old Adam—by being born.

How you are united with the Second Adam—by being born again.

Covenantal Systems:


- As the Second Adam (the true Imago Dei), Christ functions similarly to the First Adam.

‣Questions / Critiques:

๏Logic/Justice: How can one stand in for another?

๏Science: What if there wasn’t one historical Adam?

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ADAMSOME GENETIC

SCIENTISTS NOW

SUGGEST THAT

HUMANS EMERGED IN

MULTIPLE PLACES

FROM MULTIPLE

ANCESTORS.

Covenantal Systems:


- As the Second Adam (the true Imago Dei), Christ functions similarly.

‣Questions / Critiques:

๏Logic/Justice: How can one stand in for another?

๏Science: What if there wasn’t one historical Adam?

๏Theology: If Christ is second (and greater) Adam, why not Universalism?

Covenantal Systems:


- Positives:

‣Greater unity/continuity between NT / OT

‣Longer tradition: Calvin (sort of) ; Wesley; etc.

Covenantal Systems:


- Questions / Problems:

‣What about the numerous covenants in OT? Are these not separate “dispensations”?

๏The “covenant of works” does not refer to a specific OT covenant (i.e. Abraham, Noah, Moses).

‣Can the idea of Federal Headship hold up?

‣Does it ignore God’s promises to Israel?

๏Supersessionism? / Replacement Theology?

Covenantal Systems:

Lutheran

- Abraham reveals salvation by grace through faith alone.

- Moses (Law) sent to reveal our inability to earn salvation

‣Purpose of Law: To drive us to the gospel

- Christ accomplishes salvation for us

‣ Our Part: faith alone

These three covenantal systems can be differentiated

largely by how they view the Law

Covenantal Systems:

The Primary Role of the Law

1.Lutheran:

‣Law brings a personal experience of inadequacy before God (frustrates our attempts to “earn it”).

2.Covenantal:

‣Law as an historical reality fulfilled by Jesus.

3.Dispensational:

‣The Law was for Jews; Obedience postponed till Millennium.

Covenantal Systems:

Conclusion:

- While some knowledge of these approaches to the Bible

(i.e. covenantal systems) is helpful, one need not

subscribe wholesale to any one of them.

The Meta-narrative

The rest of the class will involve walking through

the “chapters” or “Acts” within the Big Story of the

Bible.

Creation Fall Israel Jesus Church New Creation

The Meta-narrative

Jesus forms the center of this story, for “in him all

things hold together” (Col. 1).

Creation Fall Israel Jesus Church New Creation

1 intro theological interpretation of scripture

Education

systematic theology

dogmatic theology

biblical books

movement introduction

history original context

systematic aka

diversity of approaches

geerhardus vos1862