Biblical Theology
Retrospect and Prospect
Scott J. Hafemann
On April 6-8, 2000, the ninth annual Wheaton Theology Conference brought
together a mix of younger and senior scholars from inside and outside of
evangelicalism to think together about the history and future of biblical theology.
This book represents some of the fruit of this labor. In the essays that follow,
there is a lively and serious discussion concerning the contours of biblical theology.
Nevertheless, all are convinced that although the biblical theology movement of the
mid-twentieth century ran its course, biblical theology as such is not a movement.
Indeed, as James Smart observed, to call biblical theology a “movement” in the
first place was “the kiss of death.”1
Movements are temporary answers to abiding issues. Thus, by definition,
movements come and go. In stark contrast, biblical theology is an abiding
response demanded by the subject matter of the biblical text itself. At the
descriptive level, biblical theology recognizes that the authors and editors of the
biblical texts understood themselves to be preserving and interpreting the
significance of God’s redemptive acts in the history of Israel, Jesus and the church.
At the prescriptive level, biblical theology will and must last as long as the Bible is
held to be God’s Word about himself and his relationship to his creation. The Bible is
not merely a witness to revelatory events or theological ideas but is itself an
expression of theological activity and affirmation. To do biblical theology is to go
where the Bible leads us, since the Scriptures are a record of historical events
interpreted in terms of their theological significance. Thus biblical theology “is an
enlargement of the dimensions of biblical science to make its character and
methodology commensurate with the contents of the documents which it is its
task to interpret.”2
As a result, biblical theology attempts to ascertain the inner points of coherence
and development within the biblical narrative and exposition. It does its work
inductively from within the Bible in an attempt to bring out the Bible’s own
message. It is well known, however, that students of biblical theology disagree
over its methodology, not to mention its structure and content. In view of this
diversity, the purpose of this collection of essays is to look at the way in which
biblical theology has been done in the last century in order to think about how it
ought to be done in the next. This retrospect and prospect have made it clear that
several salient issues now confront all those who desire to follow the biblical text
wherever it may lead them theologically.
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND THE QUESTION OF DIVERSITY
Several of the studies (and much of the discussion at the conference) are a
response to the fact that the diversity of Scripture preserves within its pages
unresolved tensions. In the past, biblical theologies have taken this tension to be
the remains of competing ideological viewpoints that have been imperfectly
combined in the historical development of Scripture. Hence, as Gerald Wilson points
out, the tension was often neutralized by trying to ascertain the best among many
voices or by allowing the diversity to stand “as unresolved heterodoxy.” Neither
option, however, is acceptable. In what follows, we will be challenged to consider
whether the unity of Scripture consists in living in the midst of its (apparent?)
tensions as poles on a spectrum, as mutually interpretive lenses in a prism, or as
the expression of an enlarging history of redemption. We will also be called to think
through whether Scripture presents a collage of theological loci or one overarching
and integrated center. The fact that no consensus has been reached concerning the
theological heart of the Bible makes these questions all the more pertinent, albeit
daunting, especially when we take seriously the task of integrating every corner of
the canon into our biblical theology, from the Wisdom literature to the Johannine
literature and James. Readers will be spurred on in this task by the creative,
integrative work presented in the essays that follow by those in the earlier stages
of their scholarly careers and by the seasoned reflections of Professors Dumbrell,
Sailhamer, Wilson and Stuhlmacher. The volume before us makes clear that a
compelling biblical theology must speak with a cohesive voice concerning God and
his covenant relationship with his people in order to address God’s people about
their Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge. At the same time, the historical
framework posited by the Scriptures must be taken into consideration, since God
has revealed himself as King in the history of Israel and in the kingdom of the
crucified Messiah. To that end, Daniel Fuller and James Scott remind us that we
cannot avoid raising anew the age old questions of the law-gospel contrast on the
one hand and of the roles of Israel and the church in redemptive history on the
other. When all is said and done, are there two or more fundamental messages
and peoples of God in the Bible or one? How this question is answered determinesone’s understanding of the history of redemption, personal justification and
eschatology, which together lie at the heart of biblical revelation.
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND THE QUESTION OF THE CANON
The essays in this book and the passionate disagreement during the conference
also call attention to the fact that biblical theology cannot make substantial
progress in the decades to come unless it takes up the questions being raised in
biblical scholarship concerning the literary unity and structure of the canon. Does
the fact of the canon bespeak its own perceived unity theologically, thereby
offering essential clues to its structure and meaning? If so, which canon and how?
The programmatic work of Brevard Childs on the one hand and the Tübingen
school on the other makes it clear that the Bible’s theology cannot be developed in
the abstract as if the canon in its various forms (!) and the history of its traditions
do not exist.3
If context is king when it comes to theological exegesis, we cannot escape the fact
that the context of Scripture also includes its developing canonical shape as the
depository of tradition history. This becomes equally true for the NT, if in fact the
NT writings did not come into existence in isolation from one another and if the NT
canon is the product of an early editorial design rather than of a long, slow process
of collection and evaluation.4
However, biblical theology is just now coming to grips with the complexity and
intentionality of the formation of the canon(s). This is illustrated by the questions
and proposals raised concerning the tripartite Hebrew/OT canon and its significance
for the doing of biblical theology in a world dominated by the Septuagint’s influence
on the ordering of the Christian Bible. Does the Tanak in its final form exhibit an
explicit, editorial canon consciousness that provides exegetical and theological clues
to its meaning? Does the Hebrew canon help us solve the problem of the
interrelationship among the Law, the Prophets and the Writings? In pursuing these
questions, we must be clear regarding the historical reconstructions and exegetical
methodology that we bring to bear in answering them, especially as they revolve
around the so-called canonical seams and programmatic conclusions within the OT.
At the same time, the conference brought home to many the pivotal question of
whether the OT canon was closed prior to the coming of the Christ, so that in the
doing of biblical theology we are faced with two distinct Testaments (see especially
the essay by Christopher Seitz). Or was the content of the canon still open in the
first century A.D., with the formation of the NT as the literary and theological-historical continuation of Israel’s ongoing heritage, so that biblical theology is the
study of one “history of tradition”? And what is the significance of the fact that
there is no one, unified ordering of the books within the Hebrew or Septuagint
tradition, not to mention the differences between the Masoretic Text and the
Septuagint themselves? At what stage in the formation of the biblical canon do we
do our biblical theology? These are difficult and pressing questions that biblical
theology cannot relegate to the province of historical studies.
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND THE QUESTION OF CONFLICT
The work in this volume on the unity of the canon and its theological trajectories
reveals that there is a strong impetus to overcome the conflict theories that have
dominated biblical theology in the past. In order to remain faithful to the message
of the biblical text, this volume encourages us to rethink the dichotomies so often
posited in the past between the Law and the Prophets, priest and prophet, Jesus
and Paul, creation and redemption, the kingdom of God and the church, as well as
the interrelated theological systems of covenant theology and dispensationalism
that have grown out of them.5
The attempt to forge a historical and theological unity out of two conflicting
realities, in which one must be sublimated to the other, is seriously being called into
question in view of a renewed emphasis on the material unity of the Bible’s
message. This growing concern for a “unity paradigm” in the doing of biblical
theology is seen in John Sailhamer’s emphasis on the eschatological drive behind
the canon; in G. K. Beale’s understanding of the new creation as central to biblical
theology; in the work of Brian Toews, Richard Schultz, Stephen Dempster and
William Dumbrell on the Genesis foundation for biblical theology; in Jay Wells’s work
on figuration throughout the Old and New Testaments; in Gerald Wilson’s emphasis
on the Davidic cast to the psalms, confirmed by Dempster’s view of the Davidic
lens to the canon as a whole; in James Scott’s focus on the fulfillment of Israel’s
hopes for restoration as central to Jesus’ ministry and therefore foundational for
the NT; in Andreas Köstenberger’s emphasis on the integrative motifs of the NT; in
Ted Dorman’s call to the ce