4Lecture 1: The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology1

Graeme Goldsworthy

Graeme Goldsworthy is a minister

of the Anglican Church of Australia and

has served in churches in Sydney and

Brisbane. He is a graduate of the Uni-

versities of Sydney, London, and Cam-

bridge, and earned his Ph.D. at Union

Theological Seminary in Richmond,

Virginia. He lectured at Moore Theologi-

cal College, Sydney, in Old Testament,

Biblical Theology, and Hermeneutics.

Now retired, Dr. Goldsworthy continues

as a visiting lecturer at Moore College

to teach a fourth-year B.D. course in

Evangelical Hermeneutics. He is the au-

thor of many books, including Preaching

the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture

(Eerdmans, 2000), According to Plan:

The Unfolding Revelation of God in the

Bible (InterVarsity, 2002), and Gospel-

Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations

and Principles of Evangelical Biblical

Interpretation (InterVarsity, 2007).

Biblical Theology and the Doctrine of Scripture

I have never really considered myself to be an academic. During my working life, I have spent more years in full-time pastoral ministry than I have in full-time theological teaching. I mention this only to emphasize that my passion for the discipline of biblical theology was not only driven by the academy, but also by the perceived pastoral need for ordinary Christians in churches to be better able to understand the Bible. What, then, is required for people to understand the Bible as Gods one word about the one way of salvation?

When a person is converted from unbelief to faith in Jesus Christ as Sav-ior and Lord, a number of changes take place. They are not all instantaneous and complete since some involve a process of growth and maturing. These include what Paul refers to in Rom 12:1-2 as the renewal of the mind. This is an aspect of sanctification in which the transformation

process goes on throughout life. Part of becoming more Christ-like is learning to think Christianly about all things including Scripture. The way a new convert begins the process of develop-ing a doctrine of Scripture cannot be stereotyped, for a lot depends on the circumstances and the Christian context in which conversion takes place. Not-withstanding the variety of experiences to which any group of Christians would testify, the common feature is that sooner

or later, in one way or another, a personal faith in Christ will lead to some kind of personally held doctrine of Scripture. The view of the Bible that has been caught or taught will form the basis for a develop-ing understanding of, first, the authority and, second, the content of Scripture. A third area is, in my opinion, often left unformed, stunted, and embryonic. This is the understanding of the relationship of the parts to the whole, the perceptions of structure and, above all, the notion of the centrality of the gospel to the whole Bible.

While recognizing that there are many ways in which biblical Christianity can be compromised, even in the most ardently evangelical church, I want to view the matter before us primarily as it should affect Christians in a church that honors the Bible as the inspired word of God and as our supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and Christian living.

Conversion to Christ, then, must affect the way people view the Bible. They may have come out of militant atheism, unreflective agnosticism, self-centered

postmodernism, or just plain ignorance of all things Christian. But conversion will mean that the word through which Christ is made known will take on a growing coherence and authority. Regrettably, it is true to say that in many evangelical congregations, while the authority of the Bible is usually asserted or implied, the coherence of the canon, its inner unity, is left largely to chance.

What, then, are the driving forces for

5doing biblical theology, and when did the discipline emerge? Craig Bartholomew, commenting on the frequently-made claim that Johann Philipp Gabler started it all with his inaugural address at Alt-dorf in 1787, says, But biblical theology, in the sense of the search for the inner unity of the Bible, goes back to the church fathers.2 That is undeniable, but from where did the church fathers get this sense of inner unity? Obviously they were responding to the gospel and the apostolic testimony that they perceived in the Scriptures themselves. I suggest that the emergence of biblical theology is a feature of the dynamic of revelation within Scripture itself, and becomes evi-dent the moment the prophetic word in Israel begins to link previous prophetic words and events into a coherent pattern of salvation history. This happens in the way the prophets, beginning with Moses, speak a thus says Yahweh word into the contemporary events and link it with what has preceded it. A case in point is the unfolding of the significance of the

covenant with Abraham as it governs subsequent events. The events of Genesis 12-50 cannot be properly understood apart from the initial promises to Abra-ham and their frequent reiteration. The narrative of Exodus is in the same way taken up under this covenant. The whole course of salvation history in the Old Testament from Moses onwards is an expansion of the words in Exod 2:23-25:

During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israeland God knew.

All the subsequent events of the Penta-teuch are the outworking of the Abra-hamic covenant. So also is the narrative of events in the Former Prophets. The covenant is seen as the formal vehicle for conveying the reality of Gods redemptive rule over his people. The joint themes of kingdom and covenant that are estab-lished with Abraham reach back to the beginning of creation and Gods dealing with mankind. These themes are subse-quently developed as the foundations of the matrix of revelation in the Bible.

This process of progressive revelation continues throughout the Old Testament in a way that demands our investigation of the nature of the unity of the canonical Scriptures. The rich diversity of literary type or genre in no way undermines the overall unity that is discernible. It is clear, however, that the tensions between prom-ise and fulfillment that so characterize the

Old Testament are never resolved in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. These ten-sions are found in the history of Israel as it goes from Egyptian captivity to its zenith under David and Solomon, and in the subsequent decline leading to captivity in Babylon. The restoration under Cyrus fails to deliver the expected kingdom, and we are forced to look beyond for the ful-fillment of the kingdom promised by the

prophets. The New Testament takes up the challenge by asserting that the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth constitute the fulfillment and resolution.

The process of theologizing goes on throughout the Old Testament texts. This simply means that the individual texts, the books or corpora, are essen-tially books about God and his word-interpreted deeds. It is this recognition that God is the central character of the Bible that makes biblical theology viable.

6Theological reflection and discourse is

everywhere. God is speaking, command-ing, promising, judging, and revealing his plan and purpose. In the passage of time, various prophetic speakers and writers reflect on the past, and speak the

word of God for the future. The people of the Bible respond to God in different ways ranging from a deep conviction of faith to rebellious unbelief. Sinfulness and unbelief require us to make a distinc-tion between the religion of Israel and the theology of the Old Testament. This distinction was obliterated in the history-of-religions approach that overshadowed Old Testament theology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

When we come to the Latter Prophets, it is clear that they understand the his-tory of Israel as history under judgment because of unbelief. Their three-fold message of indictment, judgment, and hope of restoration is as varied as their historical and social contexts. But one thing they have in common is the recog-nition that the Day of the Lord, the great day of restoration and final salvation, is

shaped by and will recapitulate the his-torical experience of Israel from Abraham to David, Zion, and the temple. Thus, while Israels history is history under judgment, it is also the pattern-making medium for Gods redemptive word and actions. For the pre-exilic prophets, the perspective is largely that the future restoration from exile will be the moment of fulfillment. But the restoration proves

to be a disappointment, and it is the role of the post-exilic prophets to project the hope of Israel to a future coming of the Lord, a hope that remains unfulfilled

at the end of the Old Testament period. This prophetic sense of the continuity and of the dynamic of salvation history

is maintained in the New Testament. The consequence of all this is that our

doctrine of Scripture, to be robust and maturing, needs to involve more than an abstract concept of authority and inspira-tion. It needs shape, and it is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ that gives it that shape by providing the center on which all Scripture converges. In this regard, hermeneutics intersects with dogmatics, and both intersect with biblical theology. We cannot really have any useful concept of the authority of the Bible unless we have some notion of what the authorita-tive word is telling us. Consistent Chris-tian theism asserts that the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth provide the reference points for the development of hermeneutics, and the derivation of dogmatics. As the word of God must be self-authenticating, so it must be self-interpreting. Authority and interpreta-tion both come from within Scripture. This is the only way it can be if we accept the biblical perspective on the matter. Gods fullest and final word is the Word

incarnate, Jesus Christ. Consequently, while the interpretation of each Testa-ment needs the other, the primary focus is that the New Testament must interpret the Old and not vice versa.

We can summarize the biblical per-spective in this way: God creates all things by his word and speaks to the pinnacle of creation, the human pair, in words that are intended to be under-stood and obeyed. The twin word-events of creation and address establish Gods word as the medium of his action and communication. The rebellion of Adam and Eve is a rejection of the word of God and its self-authenticating authority and meaning. The fall is a moral revolt that demands judgment. Any redress must be

7both revealing and redeeming. Scripture is the Spirit-inspired word that accurately preserves for us the whole process of Gods redemptive word active in human history. The doctrine of Scripture as the written word of God must focus on both authority and structure. The doctrine of the authority of the Bible demands the task of biblical theology, which is to seek to understand both the structure and the content of Scripture. But, because, as Paul states it, The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to under-stand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14), there is the need for regeneration and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit if one is to grasp both the authority and meaning of Scripture.

The Role of the Gospel in Biblical Theology

First, in order to understand the place of the gospel in biblical theology, tentative definitions of both gospel and biblical theol-ogy are called for. One way to define the

gospel is in the terms Paul uses in Rom 1:1-4. Here he states four crucial things about the gospel.

Romans 1:1 reads, Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. The first point is probably self-evident: it is

Gods gospel. However, the epistle to the Romans implies that this gospel is Gods solution to his own problem of how to justify the ungodly.

In the second verse, it is the gospel which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. It is the gospel of the Old Testament prophets and cannot be regarded as replacing or discarding the Old Testament antecedents to the coming of Jesus. It means that Jesus

is the fulfillment of prophecy, and this

fact alone makes biblical theology neces-sary. Then, in verse three, it is the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh. It concerns the Son of God whose lineage goes back to the theologically significant

figure of David. We may infer from this

that, though there can be no gospel with-out the Father or the Holy Spirit, its focus is on the incarnate Son. This Davidic lineage also points to the structure of biblical theology in redemptive covenant and kingdom history.

Finally, in verse four, the Son was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. The defin-ing moment is the resurrection which, of course, implies the death of Jesus which, in turn, implies the life of Jesus. The res-urrection fulfils the promises concerning

the rule of the son of David. The gospel, then, is Gods message of the person and work of Jesus, testified to by the Old Tes-tament, and coming to its climax in the exaltation of Jesus.

The definition of biblical theology is

harder to achieve. I can only give it to you as I understand it. 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 rev-elation. 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 at 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. Thus we start with Christ so that we may end with Christ. Biblical theology is Christological, for its subject matter is the Scriptures as Gods testimony to

8Christ. It is therefore, from start to finish,

a study of Christ.How biblical theology is actually done

will depend a great deal on our dogmatic presuppositions about the nature of Scrip-ture. If we do not have confidence in the

Bible as the inspired word of God, we will treat it as a collection of human docu-ments. Liberalism killed biblical theology because it could not allow for the unity of Scripture as reflecting the one purpose of

its one Author.I must hasten to add that my saying

that biblical theology is a study of Christ is not Christomonism. Jesus, as the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), makes the Father known. Union with Christ makes us sons who are able by the Spirit to cry Abba, Father. (Gal 4:6)

Biblical theology is much more than simply relating the events of the story in chronological order, even if accompanied by theological comment in the process. It needs to be analytical of the theological dynamics within the big story. What is the nature of the progress of revelation? Is it a gradual dawning of the light, or is it a series of discreet steps? What is the relationship between the two Testaments? In biblical theology there needs to be the kind of theological reflection that would

help us to see the great recurring themes, both in their unity and their diversity. We observe the way in which the proph-ets deliberately recapitulate the earlier history of redemption in their eschato-logical projections. We seek to analyze the dynamics of prophetic fulfillment and typology.

Biblical theology is, to quote my own teacher Donald Robinson, the study of the Bible in its own terms.3 As I understand it, biblical theology involves first of all the

close reading or exegesis of the parts in

order to understand the theological per-spectives contained. These must then be synthesized into an understanding of the unity of the theology of the whole canon. The wider synthesis will then affect our understanding of the significance of the

parts. But, why should we have any con-fidence that such a task can be realized?

Such confidence can only come from

the gospel itself. The writers of the four Gospels point the way by their handling of distinct aspects of the relationship of the person and ministry of Jesus to the Old Testament Scriptures. This theolo-gizing of the evangelists, that is integral to their historiography, leaves us in no doubt about the conviction of Jesus and his apostles as to the unity of the biblical message with its center in the person of Jesus.

When we take the New Testament documents on their own terms, we find

that everywhere the theologizing of the Old Testament is continuing, but now done in the light of the fullest revelation of God given to us in Jesus. But I think that all too few evangelicals actually reflect on the relationship of the person

of Christ and his gospel, as they perceive it, to their convictions about the Bible. I refer here especially to a sense of the inner dynamic and unity of Scripture that makes it possible to speak of the whole as containing a single story. The early Christian apologists had to deal with this unity while opposing two main enemies. On the one hand, the Gnostics, such as Marcion, in order to preserve their docetic view of Christ, wanted to sever all connection with the Old Testa-ment. On the other hand, the majority of Jews wanted to sever all connection with apostolic Christianity. Both Gnostics and non-Christian Jews solved the problem of

9the theological relationship of Jesus to the Old Testament by complete separation. The Christian way of dealing with both challenges would eventually be formu-lated in terms of unity and distinction in the relationship of the two Testaments.

Some scholars have queried the pos-sibility of doing biblical theology at all. Others have found a gospel-centred approach to biblical theology unaccept-able. This is because the primary pre-suppositional stance of Christian theism is disputed. For example, James Barr comments,

Biblical theology has had its enthu-siasts, who cannot understand why anyone would question its valid-ity as a subject; it has also had its opponents, some of whom consider it to be impracticable as an area of research, or unacceptable as an academic subject, or useless to the religious community, or all three of these.4

The evangelical biblical theologian works from a hermeneutic of confi-dent enquiry, while the sceptic usually reflects an Enlightenment attitude of suspicion. Between these two poles of a hermeneutic of faith and a hermeneutic of radical suspicion, lie a whole variety of approaches to the doing of theology either as a formal discipline or as an intuitive exercise in building some kind of personal worldview. The problem in defining biblical theology lies in the

nature of this spectrum. Some reject even the desirability of attempting any kind of theology which implies such questionable dimensions as a God who speaks, and a canon of Scripture that is uniquely tied to the revelation of God or privileged by divine inspiration. Biblical theology is then reduced to the history of religious ideas. Others embrace the challenge with enthusiasm but qualify it

with principles and procedures that are independent of the Scriptural witness. Still others, and notably Christian theists, assert a hermeneutical spiral that builds its presuppositional base upon the bibli-cal scenario.

This latter approach provides a start-ing point that is something like the following: Faith in the Jesus of the bibli-cally presented gospel drives us to the acceptance that the biblical record overall is faithful and true. Jesus is Lord and this is his word. From this it is a short step to acceptance of the biblical claims to present the word of the living God who addresses us. The prophetic formula, Thus says the Lord is but one aspect of this truth claim to be Gods word. Thus, the conviction of faith together with an inductive approach to individual biblical texts provide a dogmatic basis for the deductive return to the same texts and to the whole range of canonical Scripture.

It may seem logical to think of the inductive, exegetical task as a purely objective and foundational exercise upon the results of which theology is based. But, few, I think, would argue today for the notion of such an objective and presupposition-less exercise. Exegesis is a theological task that makes most sense if understood as engaged by rational beings that are created in the image of a rational God whose chosen medium of expression is his rational word. Exegesis pursued on the basis of the kind of humanistic ratio-nalism that ignores the basis of our ratio-nality in a rational God, but rather finds

it in an irrational appeal to time and blind chance is, to the theistic mindset at least, absurd and self-defeating. As Gerhard Hasel states, Biblical theology employs the theological-historical method which takes full account of Gods self-revelation

10

embodied in Scripture in all it dimen-sions of reality.5 He points out that even von Rad recognised that the historical-critical method cannot do justice to the Old Testament scriptures claim to truth.6

The bottom line of this is that it does indeed make sense to pursue an under-standing of the Bible in its own terms (as Donald Robinson, phrased it). Many of the objections to this are born of the hermeneutics of suspicion, while others are the result of the practical difficulties

in dealing with such a large and diverse collection of books. Notwithstanding the early struggles to define the Christian

canon, at the heart of the churchs accep-tance of the Bible, as uniquely the word of God, is the self-authenticating word of Jesus. Jesus himself provides the basis for our recognition of the canon when, for example, he declares, My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:27). Unlike Rome, which says that the church rules the canonical process, we believe that the canonical process stems from the authority of Jesus and itself rules the church. Furthermore, it was Jesus who made the connection between the Old Testament and himself in a way that establishes the nature of the unity of the Bible.

Jesus imprimatur on the Hebrew canon, itself a manifestly diverse collec-tion of books, is the essential basis for the Christian theists confidence that some

kind of unity within the diversity of the Bible can be recognised. Once again a dogmatic presupposition begins to form which helps in the task of describing the relationship of the parts to the whole; of the diversity to the unity, and of the discontinuity to the continuity within the Bible. Faith in Jesus as the starting point for serious, believing, study of the

Bible soon involves us in the question of Christology (what it means for Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ) and the ques-tion of theology (what it means for Jesus to be the Word come in the flesh, to be

the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity). The Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Christology of the two natures of Christ are closely related since both are integral to the gospel message. Both involve us in the recognition that unity and distinction exist together in God as the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and in Jesus as true God and true man yet one person. As some Christian apologists and theologians have asserted, the way God is and the way Jesus is show that both unity and diversity are equally ultimate, and that it is characteris-tic of non-Christian thought and of heresy to express relationships as either unity or diversity. Unity without distinction leads to fusion (for example, in the Trinitarian heresy of modalism); distinction without unity leads to separation (for example, in the Trinitarian heresies of tritheism and Arianism). This is not to deny that there are valid either-or distinctions: such as heaven or hell, light or darkness, good or evil.

In approaching the Bible, then, we may state a Christian theistic approach as tak-ing its start from the gospel. In doing so it becomes involved in a hermeneutic spiral, which includes dogmatic presupposi-tions about God and the Bible and which tests those presuppositions by the text of the Bible itself. The unity of the Bible lies not only in the coherence of its nar-rative structure, but also in the fact that the whole of it constitutes a testimony to Christ and the salvation he brings. The unity of the Bible is thus a corollary of faith in Jesus Christ rather than some-

11

thing initially established on empirical grounds. The authority of the Bible lies not only in the fact of inspiration, but also in every texts inspired relationship to Christ who is the very truth and Word of God incarnate.

Thus, the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the Word of God do not consti-tute two different words that somehow compete. There is a unity between them, in that our only knowledge of the Word incarnate is through the word inscriptur-ate as it conveys its truth and authority through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Yet this unity is not fusion for there are also important distinctions. Jesus is not a book that we have here with us. He is not here; he is risen, and he makes himself present by his word and Spirit. He is God who came in the flesh, and he remains the

God-Man in his exaltation. Furthermore, the Bible is not God, and Christians do not worship it.

Unity in the Bible, then, is seen in the claims of Jesus including those in Luke 24:25-27 and 44-45 that the three parts of the Hebrew canon are about him, or in his statement to the Jews in John 5:39-47 that the Scriptures testify of him and that Moses wrote about him. Unity is seen in the way Jesus is constantly declared to be the fulfiller of the prophetic promises,

both individually and comprehensively. It is seen in the way Jesus is portrayed as the one who in the eschaton brings about the consummation of all things, so that the overarching story of the Bible is perceived as a progression from creation to the new creation. Many doubt the unity of the canon or that there is a theological center. But, on the basis of Jesus own testimony we have to say that the diverse theologi-cal themes find their center and unity in

Jesus himself. Paul House states it thus:

[U]nitary biblical theology is possible because a united Trinity has breathed out these texts.7

The necessity for biblical theology lies in an analytical Christology that goes well beyond the simplistic assertion, as important as it is, that Jesus died for our sins. There are further considerations in the Christology of the New Testament that address the question of the unity of the biblical account. The comprehensive and cosmic Christ that the New Testa-ment testifies to is a far more complex

figure than the basic personal savior of

popular evangelical piety. The question of the nature of the problem and the solution to the problem is crucial. It is sometimes asked, If Christ is the answer, what is the question? The gospel must show us both the problem and the answer. But it does both by its constant self-reference in terms of its antecedents in the Old Testa-ment. Thus, it is not only individuals and the nations that need a savior, for the whole creation is under judgment and is being redeemed. Evangelicals frequently stress the importance of the new birth, but tend to do so as a purely individual and subjective experience related to con-version. The biblical theological perspec-tive places personal regeneration within the wider cosmic scope that leads from creation to new creation.

The cosmic Creator-Christ of John 1 and Colossians 1 points to the need to understand the inner dynamics of the gospel and of salvation as they affect the whole of creation. If, as Paul indicates in Rom 8:19-23, the significance of Gods

judgment in Genesis 3 includes the fall of the universe on account of the first

Adams sin, then the last Adam comes to restore the universe and effect the new creation. The summing up of all things

12

in Christ that Paul speaks of in Eph 1:10 echoes his perspective in Col 1:15-20 of the cosmic implications of Jesus being and his death. Not only is Jesus the blue-print of creation, the Creator and upholder of all things; he restores all things.

This perspective helps us to under-stand the New Testament pattern of eschatology. I fully realize that my under-standing is not that of many evangelicals. I can only put it as I see it. Adrio Knig in his book, The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatol-ogy,8 expresses well what I understand to be the perspective of the New Testa-ment. Pauls categories of justification,

sanctification, and glorification indicate

the dynamics of redemption. In mak-ing atonement for sin, Jesus dealt with the fall, not only of mankind, but of the universe. His life, death, and resurrection constituted the reassembling of reality representatively in his own person. He is the locus of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Though it is representative of a wider reality, it is still the power of God for sal-vation. The ascension of Jesus means that a representative Man is justified by his

own merits so as to be acceptable in the presence of God. We are justified in our

union by faith with the justified Christ

and his merits. We are being sanctified

through the same gospel as we are con-formed more and more to the image of Christ. We shall be glorified when Christ

comes again to judge the living and the dead and we shall be like him (1 John 3:2).

The implication of this perspective for biblical theology, then, is that all proph-ecy and promise in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ at his first coming.

The exaltation of Christ is the final dem-onstration of this as Paul indicates in Acts 13:32-33: We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,

this he has fulfilled to us their children

by raising Jesus. So, in 2 Cor 1:20, Paul asserts, All the promises of God find

their Yes in him. Thus, the end of the ages has come with Jesus of Nazareth as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:11. Hebrews 1:2 tells us that it is In these last days [that] God has spoken to us by his Son. For John, the coming of Jesus means that this the last hour (1 John 2:18). For Peter, Jesus was made manifest in the last times (1 Pet 1:20).

But the promises go on being ful-filled. What was representatively done in

Christ, now becomes experiential reality in the world through the preaching of the gospel as it is sovereignly applied by the Spirit of God. The whole of the end has come for us in Christ. The whole of the end is coming in the world and in us through the gospel. The whole of the end will come with us as the great consumma-tive event when Jesus returns in glory to judge the living and the dead.

Let me summarize this point: The gospel message concerns the historical event of the incarnation of God the Son as Jesus of Nazareth. It tells of his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension as the activity of God by which we are saved and creation is restored in him. The person of Christ as the incarnate God, the God-Man, is at the heart of the dynam-ics of salvation in which the one acts for the many. It is the means by which God reconnects all aspects of reality in the person of Christ and, at the same time, deals with the moral problem of discon-nectedness, that is, of sin. Just as the cre-ation fell with the sin of the first Adam,

so with the last Adam, and through his cross, the creation is renewed or regener-ated. The unity-distinction in Christ is the pattern of truth that informs us of all

13

relationships, not least of those within the biblical corpora.

The work of Christ in his ministry includes his being the fulfiller of the Old

Testament promises. It is on the grounds of his word, and that of the apostles that come after him, that we accept the basic tenet that the Old Testament is a book about Christ. The events of the Old Testa-ment and the prophetic words that inter-pret these events are thus testimonies to the coming Christ. The hermeneutics of the person of Christ intersect with the hermeneutics of the work of Christ.9 They establish the canon as diversity within unity and as a book about Christ.

Challenges to Biblical TheologyI will not here rehearse at length the

details of the history of biblical studies. Suffice it to say that certain key events

have affected the fortunes of biblical the-ology. There was, as I have expressed it in my recently published book on herme-neutics, a continual eclipsing of the gospel in biblical interpretation. Beginning with the sub-apostolic age, there was the grow-ing dominance of dogma over exegesis and hermeneutics. Church dogma, or the rule of faith, began to determine the outcome of exegesis and hermeneutics. Gnostic and Platonic influences in the

allegorical interpretations of Scripture predominated from the second to the sixteenth centuries. Then, influenced by Aristotelian empiricism, Aquinas established the basis of Roman Catholic theology, which has remained largely unchanged to the present, as essentially liberal because of his dualism of nature and grace. The Enlightenment subjected biblical studies to the latest philosophical fashions eclipsing any place for a God who speaks a word in a way that can be

understood. The Enlightenment gave us the modernism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and this in turn gave way to post-modernism.

There are two main kinds of challenge to biblical theology that I can see. The first

is the disappointing rejection or neglect of it by many evangelicals. This may happen in response to poorly worked expressions of biblical theology, or because of an inconsistent evangelicalism that obscures the imperative to engage in biblical theol-ogy. I will defer further discussion of this until my third lecture. The other is the academically driven refusal to regard the Bible in the traditional way as being the inspired word of God. Ironically, many of the fine exponents of biblical theology

have had such an Enlightenment view of the Bible, but they nevertheless perse-vered in trying to uncover the inner unity of the Bible. One such was Gabriel Hebert, an English Anglo-Catholic monk who taught at a seminary in South Australia and made a number of much appreciated visits to Moore College. His work was one of the influences on my teacher Donald

Robinson and, thus, on me. Yet, in 1957 he published Fundamentalism and the Church of God 10 in which he was highly critical of evangelicalism in general and, in par-ticular, of the New Bible Commentary pub-lished by the InterVarsity Fellowship in 1953. This criticism provoked Jim Packers classic evangelical response in Funda-mentalism and the Word of God.11 Donald Robinson, who motivated me to pursue biblical theology, refers to a number of scholars who influenced his thinking; but

they were not all evangelicals. He men-tions C. H. Dodd and Oscar Cullmann, along with Hebert.

It is clear that we can be somewhat eclectic in our approach to scholarship.

14

What separates me from non-evangelicals like Hebert is not the quest for the inner coherence of the biblical story, but the theological presuppositions that gov-ern this quest. This is illustrated in the American experience of the twentieth century. Brevard Childs, in his famous 1970 monograph Biblical Theology in Crisis,12 attempted to understand what was perceived to be the demise of the so-called American school of biblical theology represented by men like G. E. Wright and my own mentor John Bright. He saw it as an attempt to build a bridge between fundamentalism and liberal-ism. He rightly recognized that there was a crisis in the understanding of the doctrine of Scripture. He went on from there in the 1970s to develop his canonical approach. In doing so, he did not, in my opinion, sufficiently come to terms with

the doctrine of Scripture that he himself identified as the chief cause of the biblical

theological movements demise.Childs was influenced by the his-

torical-criticism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Yet, we can only be grateful that he provided a considerable impetus in the move back to the biblical documents as we have them as the locus of theological concern. But, the lack of consensus about theory and practice continues to hinder progress. As far back as 1979, the Adventist theologian Gerhard Hasel, in a paper to the Evangelical Theo-logical Society, wrote,

Biblical theology is today in a state of disarray. The disturbing fact that there is no one definition of this field on which biblical scholars can unanimously agree is highlighted by the diversity of approaches in the unprecedented volume of recent publications.13

He goes on to refer to eleven different theologies of the New Testament and at least twelve theologies of the Old Testa-ment published in the previous decade. These, he said, reveal basic disparities regarding the nature, function, method, and scope of biblical theology. The Roman Catholic theologian John L. McK-enzie opens the introduction to his Old Testament Theology with this comment: Biblical theology is the only discipline or subdiscipline in the field of theology

that lacks generally accepted principles, methods, and structure.14

Charles Scobie, in referring to the legacy of Gabler, indicates that his desig-nation of biblical theology as a purely his-torical pursuit allows it to be undertaken as a secular exercise. Gablers famous distinction between biblical and system-atic theology encouraged the idea that he had thus established the discipline of biblical theology and that it did not exist before him. Because his approach sat so comfortably with the Enlightenment, it led to the division of the discipline into Old Testament theology and New Testa-ment theology, to the eventual decline of biblical theology, and then to its demise.15 But there has always been a conserva-tive minority seeking to preserve the traditional views of the Bible recovered for us by Calvin and Luther. The heirs of the Reformation have remained, usually a minority, sometimes persecuted in the academy, but tenaciously holding on to the authority of the Bible. The uneasy sense of the unity of the biblical message held throughout the Middle Ages was largely stripped of its allegorism and scholasticism by Luther and Calvin. This allowed a truly evangelical biblical theol-ogy to be reborn. At times it looked like the runt of the litter but, in the providence

15

of God, it has latterly grown and matured, not least in Australia and Britain as well as in North America.

Childss 1970 monograph outlines the following problematic issues that chal-lenged biblical theology and led to its alleged demise: 16

(1) The relationship of history to revelation. (2) The problem of the unity of the Bible.(3) Claims to the distinctiveness of biblical thought.(4) The distinctiveness of biblical religion.(5) The question of a theological cen-tre, and the relationship of biblical studies to theology.

I believe that, while these are issues that we must all be concerned with, the prob-lematic nature of them is largely driven by the alien philosophical presupposi-tions of liberal scholarship. That is why evangelicals, once they are introduced to the discipline, have usually been much more positive and optimistic about the pursuit of biblical theology.

Childs also points to the issues that Gerhard Ebeling referred to in his book Word and Faith published in English in 1963.17 This was an attempt to redefine biblical theology and repair one of Gablers detrimental effects by rejoining the historical and the theological ele-ments. But Ebeling saw the theological unity of both Old and New Testaments as fragile. He also suggested that the histori-cal discipline cannot be confined to the

study of a dogmatic entity that we call the canon. In this we must part company with Ebeling. James Barr, who seems rather ambivalent about biblical theology, enu-merates a number of points that various scholars have raised in opposition to the discipline thus:18

(1) It is a purely historical study.(2) It cannot achieve anything.(3) Theology is not admissible in the academy.(4) It is dependent on invalid lin-guistic features.(5) It clashes with sociological and literary studies.(6) There is no such thing as a theol-ogy of the Old Testament.

All of these challenges, I suggest, can be counter-challenged from the stand-point of Christian theism and evangeli-cal theology. Others have sought to cast doubt on the discipline in similar ways. John Collins19 and another Roman Catho-lic theologian, Roland Murphy,20 have raised the problem of a critical biblical theology. It seems to me that they exhibit the Roman Catholic ambivalence to his-torical critical studies that is generated by Thomism. Collins concludes that

Historical criticism, consistently understood, is not compatible with a confessional theology that is committed to specific doctrines on the basis of faith. It is, however, quite compatible with theology, understood as an open-ended and critical inquiry into the meaning and function of God-language. Bib-lical theology on this model is not a self-sufficient discipline, but is a subdiscipline that has a contribu-tion to make to the broader subject of theology.21

More recently, David Penchansky has argued from a postmodern perspective that biblical theology is a political exer-cise.22 With the touching assumption that we should understand his own authorial intent, he asserts that both the protago-nists and the detractors of biblical theol-ogy have imposed their own meaning on the biblical text. He can only know this if he has understood their meaning and has not imposed his meaning on their texts or on the biblical text.

16

We do not have time to pursue these objections to biblical theology. It will have to be enough to suggest a common element in them. In saying that they all stem from a presuppositional base that is itself unbiblical is not to say that these are issues that need not be faced by the evan-gelical biblical theologian. I personally find reading critics like James Barr stimu-lating and often salutary. They remind me of things that I may be taking for granted and which remain unexamined. But, in the end, it is a question of what Robert Reymond refers to, after Archimedes, as our pou stthe place where I standmy ultimate reference point.23

The presuppositional position of Chris-tian theism is set out by Calvin in the opening chapters of his Institutes.24 More recently, Carl Henry has given a more contemporary statement in his Toward the Recovery of Christian Belief.25 Of the same ilk are the presuppositional apolo-gists and theologians such as Cornelius Van Til, Robert Reymond, John Frame, and Richard Pratt. The genius of Calvin, in my view, is revealed in his opening chapters in which he tackles the question of true subjectivity and objectivity. He anticipates the Trinitarian structure of the entire Institutes in these first few chapters. Knowledge of God and knowledge of self are interdependent. His understanding of the nature of subjectivity in relation to objectivity could well be contem-plated by many evangelicals who have a propensity to the internalizing of the objectivity of the gospel. Calvin outlines his understanding in successive chapters. The knowledge of God, the sensus deitatis (sense of deity), is imprinted on every-man. But sin corrupts and suppresses this natural theology so that it cannot operate authentically. Hence, there is the need for

special revelation of Scripture. This wit-ness is confirmed by the inner testimony

of the Holy Spirit. Word and Spirit are inseparable, and the word, to bring life must be both revelatory and redemptive. Calvin was convinced that proofs of the credibility of Scripture will only appeal to those who have the inner witness of the Spirit.

Summary Conclusion: The Necessity of Biblical Theology

It is time now to draw together some of the threads of this discussion. This can-not be exhaustive given our constraints of time and space. I have suggested a number of reasons for my conviction that the pursuit of biblical theology is not an optional extra but a necessity. In sum-mary, the necessity of biblical theology stems from the gospel. Biblical theology is most likely to flourish when we are con-cerned to understand all the dimensions of the gospel as they have been revealed. The gospel as theological center to the Bible implies the following:

(1) The dynamic of redemptive-history from creation to new creation, with Jesus Christ at the center, points to a distinctly Christian view and philosophy of his-tory. The course of world history, accord-ing to the Bible, serves the kingly rule of the Lord God as he moves all things inexorably to the conclusion that he has determined from before the foundation of the world.

(2) The reality principle in the incarna-tion demands that every dimension of reality that the Bible expresses be exam-ined. The reality principle in Jesus is that he is shown to be God incarnate, the new creation, the last Adam, the new temple, the new Israel, the new David, and the true seed of Abraham. We could extend

17

the list, but I think the point is made. The essential thing is that he is the Immanuel, God among us in perfect relationship to humanity and to all the dimensions of reality that the Old Testament presents as the typological antecedents to his coming.

(3) The conviction of faith from the apostles onwards is that in Scripture there is not a confusion of conflicting testimo-nies but a variegated testimony to the one saving work of God in Jesus Christ. The sense of a redemptive plan coming to fruition in Christ can be seen from the beginning of the apostolic church. Both Peter, in Acts 2:16-36, and Paul, in Acts 13:16-41, proclaim a pattern of events in Israel leading to David and then to fulfil-ment in Christ. Stephens apology in Acts 7:2-53 could also be called a mini-biblical theology. In all the New Testament epis-tles, there is a sense of a narrative that lies behind and is implied by the theologizing and pastoral comment.

(4) The discipline of biblical theol-ogy is required by the big picture of the canon of Scripture as Gods word to mankind. It is the one word given to us so that men and women may be saved and, standing firm in the assurance of

their free justification in Christ, may press

on with confidence towards the goal of

their high calling in Christ, emboldened by the blessed hope of Christs return in glory to judge the living and the dead, and encouraged by the vision of the new heaven and new earth in which righ-teousness dwells for eternity.

ENDNOTES 1This article was originally presented as

part of the Gheens Lectures, delivered March 18-20, 2008, at The Southern Bap-tist Theological Seminary.

2Craig Bartholomew, Biblical Theology,

in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. K. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 84.

3D. W. B. Robinson, Origins and Unre-solved Tensions, in Interpreting Gods Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor (ed. R. J. Gibson; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 7.

4James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London: SCM, 1999), xiii.

5Gerhard Hasel, The Future of Biblical Theology, in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology (ed. K. Kantzer and S. Gundry; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 184.

6Ibid., 185. 7Paul House, Biblical Theology and the

Wholeness of Scripture, in Biblical The-ology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott Hafemann; Downers Grove: InterVar-sity, 2002), 270.

8Adrio Knig, The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).

9See my Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), chapter 19.

10A. G. Hebert, Fundamentalism and the Church of God (London: SCM, 1957)

11J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (London: InterVarsity, 1958)

12Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970).

13Hasel, The Future of Biblical Theology, 179.

14J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Chapman, 1974), 15.

15C. H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 6.

16Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, chapter 4.

17Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith (Lon-don: SCM, 1963).

18Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology,

18

chapter 14.19John J. Collins, Is a Critical Biblical

Theology Possible? in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, D. N. Freed-man; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 1-17.

20Roland E. Murphy, Reflections on a Critical Biblical Theology, in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays

in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun, Keith L Eades, with James M. Robinson and Garth I Moller; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 265-74.

21Collins, Is a Critical Biblical Theol-ogy Possible?, 14.

22David Penchansky, The Politics of Biblical Theology (Studies in Amer-ican Biblical Hermeneutics 10; Macon: Mercer University, 1995).

23Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg: Presby-terian and Reformed, 1979), 79-85.

24John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNiell; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:1-7.

2SCarl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christ ian Belie f (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990).

20

Lecture 2: Biblical Theology in the Seminary and Bible College 1

Graeme Goldsworthy

Graeme Goldsworthy is a minister

of the Anglican Church of Australia and

has served in churches in Sydney and

Brisbane. He is a graduate of the Uni-

versities of Sydney, London, and Cam-

bridge, and earned his Ph.D. at Union

Theological Seminary in Richmond,

Virginia. He lectured at Moore Theologi-

cal College, Sydney, in Old Testament,

Biblical Theology, and Hermeneutics.

Now retired, Dr. Goldsworthy continues

as a visiting lecturer at Moore College

to teach a fourth-year B.D. course in

Evangelical Hermeneutics. He is the au-

thor of many books, including Preaching

the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture

(Eerdmans, 2000), According to Plan:

The Unfolding Revelation of God in the

Bible (InterVarsity, 2002), and Gospel-

Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations

and Principles of Evangelical Biblical

Interpretation (InterVarsity, 2007).

The Awakening and Its Implications: A Personal Confession and Testimony

At the risk of appearing to be self-serving, I want to give you some idea of what makes me tick as a biblical theolo-gian. I think this is necessary if you are to appreciate my position and to assess its relevance to yourselves. I am a child of my country and its culture, and of the spiritual heritage of Calvinistic evan-gelical Anglicanism through which I was converted at the age of sixteen.

In the year 1770, the year Beethoven was born and the year of the Boston massacre, Lieutenant James Cook, Royal Navy, sailed a 106-foot-long converted Yorkshire collier, His Majestys Barque Endeavour, up the entire length of the east coast of Australia, mapping some 2,000 miles of it as he went. Six years later, an ongoing dispute between King George III and the British colonies in North America had come to a head. This resulted in the unavailability of those regions as a dump-ing ground for the malcontents and petty criminals of Britain and Ireland. Conse-quently, attention turned to the newly charted east coast of Australia as an alter-nate venue to which the riff-raff could be sent. On January 26, 1788, after a voyage of eight months, Captain Arthur Phillip, in command of a fleet of eleven ships,

moored in Sydney Cove and established the first European settlement in Australia

as a British penal colony. Among those who landed was the Reverend Richard

Johnson, an evangelical Anglican minis-ter. The inclusion of a chaplain to the first

fleet had been planned for some time, but

the decision to appoint Johnson to this post appears to have been influenced by

some prominent evangelicals including William Wilberforce and John Newton.

On a street corner in Sydneys Central Business District there now stands a stone commemorative monument marking the venue of the first Christian service

in Australia, held on February 3, 1788, and recording that Johnson preached on Psalm 116:12: What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me? The content of the sermon is now lost but there is some conjecture that, as an evan-gelical, Johnson would have included verse 13 in his exposition: I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord. It cannot be claimed that the present evangelical nature of the Angli-can Diocese of Sydney is due to Johnson. But, certainly the evangelical make-up of the diocese goes back to these beginnings that were built on by a succession of key evangelical leaders.

I began my theological studies at Moore College in Sydney in 1956. The college was founded a hundred years earlier in 1856 by the evangelical bishop of Sydney, Frederick Barker. He had been influenced by the great Charles Simeon in Cambridge, and he remained a staunch evangelical throughout his life. The nineteenth century was a time of rampant secularism during which

21

the older universities in Australia were established without theological faculties. Consequently, the training of clergy had to be done elsewhere. Up till this time the Church of England in Australia had relied

on English and Irish clergy coming to the

colonies. This dependence on imported church leaders lasted, many would think, much longer than it should have. Marcus Loane, the Principal of Moore College when I entered in 1956, was in 1966 to become the first Australian Archbishop

of Sydney. As one of the oldest tertiary institutions in Australia, Moore College was set up to train clergy for the Angli-can Church. One hundred and fifty years

later, it remains an Anglican institution with its main purpose to train clergy for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. But it has become quite international and interdenominational with a small but steady stream of Presbyterian, Baptist, and other students, and students from Britain, Europe, and the USA, as well as

from South America, south and south-east Asia.

When I entered Moore, I had never heard of biblical theology and would probably have understood the term to mean simply theology that accorded with the Bible and was thus orthodox and not unbiblical. There was no distinct course of Biblical Theology taught at that time. We were, however, urged to read John Brights The Kingdom of God, and Geerhar-dus Voss Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Edmund Clowneys Preaching and Biblical Theology, published in 1961, was also to have a considerable influence

at Moore. Moves toward instruction in biblical theology as a distinct discipline had begun at Moore in the early 1950s when Donald Robinson taught a course in the story of the Bible with emphasis

on the people of God. As far as I know, Moore College was for some time the only theological or Bible college in Australia to teach a course in biblical theology.

In 1996 the annual School of Theology at Moore, a series of public lectures, was devoted to the subject of biblical theol-ogy. The first paper was given by Donald

Robinson who for many years was vice-principal of the college before taking up the post of Bishop of Parramatta and sub-sequently Archbishop of Sydney. As he had been largely responsible for introduc-ing biblical theology to the curriculum, Robinson was asked to tell something of how it came to be established as a subject at Moore. The printed versions of these School of Theology lectures by Bishop Robinson and other members of the Moore faculty were published in a little volume, Interpreting Gods Plan.2 Robinson first considers the possibility

that the nature of his account reflects

the relative isolation of Australia from wider theological discourse in the period under review.3 Robinson describes how the Anglo-Catholic monk, Gabriel Hebert, in 1957 gave lectures to the Brisbane Anglican Clergy School on the subject of Christ the Fulfiller. He comments,

In these he propounded an outline of the contents of the Bible in three stages somewhat similar to that which I was developing in the Moore College course.4 In commenting on Heberts published criticism of the New Bible Commentary, to which Robinson himself had contributed, he noted that

Hebert thought the New Bible Com-mentary was weak and timid in exegesis, that it lacked a full world view, an integrated biblical theol-ogy, and an adequate view of the church. My point in rehearsing all this is that our biblical theology course was being fashioned in the

22

midst of an on-going debate with Dr Hebert himselfof a most charita-ble and constructive kind, I should sayon these very questions.5

Robinson explains that in the devel-opment of the course, The aim was to assist [the students] in their approach to theological study in general, and to the study of the Bible in particular.6 He fur-ther comments that, A distinction was drawn between the study of the Christian religion in its various aspects (including credal doctrines, church history, Prayer Book) and the study of the Bible in its own terms to discover what it is all about.7 This phrase, the study of the Bible in its own terms (italics mine), is the key to Robinsons approach to biblical theology.

Robinson developed the course into a treatment of seven main issues:8

(1) The character of the Bible: its scope and structure.(2) The people of God; including a study of the biblical covenants.(3) The significance of Abraham and his seed. This dealt with the bibli-cal story of the outworking of the promises to Abraham as it reached its climax with David and Solomon.(4) A treatment of the two great themes of exodus/redemption, and land/inheritance.(5) The prophetic view of promise and fulfilment.(6) The New Testament claim that all this is fulfilled in Christ.(7) Principles of biblical interpreta-tion.

Here Robinson comments signifi-cantly:

Based on the foregoing understand-ing of what the Bible is about, we enunciated a biblical typol-ogy using the three stages in the outworking of Gods promise to Abraham, that is, (a) the historical experience of the fulfilment of Gods promise to Abraham through the exodus to the kingdom of Davids son in the land of inheritance, (b)

the projection of this fulfilment into the future of the day of the Lord, by the prophets, during the period of decline, fall, exile and return, and (c) the true fulfilment in Christ and the Spirit in Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, exaltation and in his parousia as judge and saviour in a new heaven and new earth.9

I remember well the occasion in late 1957, my second year as a student at Moore, when I first heard this scheme

expounded. It was in the context of an Old Testament lecture and Donald Robinson was the lecturer. A student, with more that a trace of pain in his voice, asked the pointed question as to how all this mate-rial we had been seeking to absorb over the course really fitted together. Robinson

expounded briefly the three-fold schema

to which I have just alluded. If anything ever did, this blew my mind. I went away and drew a diagram of it, and began to think about the principles involved and to fill in for myself the details. I have been

doing that ever since. Robinsons sum-mary of biblical theology as a biblical typology using the three stages in the outworking of Gods promise to Abra-ham is, in my opinion, the key to the

matter. It is to Donald Robinson that I owe my initial insights into the structure and content of revelation that constitute the subject of biblical theology.

How things have changed! English

and Irish evangelicals established the evangelical nature of Sydney diocese and Moore College. British and continental theologians, along with some notable Americans in the Reformed tradition, were the key twentieth century influ-ences in biblical theology being estab-lished in Australia. But, in a review of the published 1996 Moore College lectures, Interpreting Gods Plan, Chris Green, an Englishman and vice-principal of Oak

23

Hill College in London wrote this rather whimsical yet flattering assessment:

Like the duck-billed platypus, con-temporary biblical theology is an Australian animal the existence of which many have doubted and even mocked. Is it a hybrid? A joke? An aberration? An impossibility?

The analogy is cute even if not entirely accurate. There is no doubt that Moore Colleges love affair with biblical theol-ogy has rubbed off onto some modern evangelicals in England and also further

afield. It is also being planted by Moore

College graduates doing missionary work in Africa, South America, Asia, and Europe. It is being further developed as

courses by the Moore College Department of External Studies which has some 5,000

students in over fifty countries. But, let us

not forget the European and American

influences that were behind things being

started at Moore in the first place. It is true

that, for a long time Australian theology, like the Australian fauna, seems to have reflected our comparative isolation from

the rest of the world. I would suggest that the acceptance of biblical theology once it was at all understood, at least in part reflects the situation that Australian

Christians felt in a society that was from its outset highly secular and lacking the kind of Christian foundations that shaped early American society. We needed the Bible to be intelligible in order to combat secularism from a fairly fragile base.

In 1973 I was invited to be a visiting lecturer at Moore College and to teach the course of Biblical Theology to first-year

students. I set about to teach for one hour per week the three-fold schema proposed by Donald Robinson and that I had been working over in my mind for the previous fifteen years. I had come to the conclusion

over time that this schema laid bare the structure of biblical revelation far better than any of the other proposals that I was aware of.

Inevitably the students asked about books on the subject and I found it dif-ficult to suggest any beyond John Brights

The Kingdom of God and Clowneys Preach-ing and Biblical Theology. But, my views differed from these books in some sig-nificant ways. Soon the students began

to badger me to write something myself; a suggestion I rejected as foolish. In time, however, the students prevailed. With the promise of editorial help from a former student who was going into Christian publishing, I began the task as soon as I had moved with my family to Brisbane in 1975. Gospel and Kingdom10 was completed in early 1976 and was rejected as unsuit-able for publication by an Australian and a British publisher in turn. It was eventually taken up by Paternoster Press in England.

Gospel and Kingdom finally saw the light of day in 1981 and is still in print, a fact that reflects the need for such a

work rather than any literary value. Two other biblical studies, one on the Book of Revelation and one on the Wisdom literature followed, both published by Paternoster. My next attempt at biblical theology, According to Plan,11 published in 1991, was geared at being a little more comprehensive in treating the whole Bible than Gospel and Kingdom had been. It was worked out on the ground in the context of a local church in Brisbane and tried out chapter by chapter on several successive groups of ordinary church members.

When I returned full-time to Moore College in 1995 I was again given the task of teaching the first-year course in

Biblical Theology. By this time Moore

24

had expanded its curriculum well beyond the basic ordination course taught when I was a student. Now independent of the Anglican regulatory body, i.e., the Aus-tralian College of Theology, Moore gains its accreditation from the Department of Education of the State of New South

Wales. There are three different one-year diploma courses for lay people who want to get a basic knowledge of the Bible and theology. The three-year Bachelor of Theology is the basic course for ministe-rial candidates. The four-year Bachelor of Divinity is the requirement for Anglican ordinands in the Diocese of Sydney. There is a part-time M.A. in theology, a full-time research M.Th. degree, and the Ph.D. can be done in conjunction with either the University of Sydney or the University of Western Sydney. The point I want to make is that in all the undergraduate theology courses (the three one-year diplomas, the B.Th., and the B.D.) biblical theology is a compulsory subject over and above the normal courses in Old and New Testaments. A student transferring from another college and seeking credits will only be granted them on successful com-pletion of the course in biblical theology.

Why is biblical theology, as a distinct and compulsory course, so important to the ethos of an evangelical college like Moore? Again I must burden you with

a little of our local history. If it does not cause you to question the place of biblical theology in the American scene, perhaps you will at least understand something of what has been driving it in our corner of Australia.

I believe it was just after the conclu-sion of World War II that Moore College expanded its two-year ordination course with a preliminary year to concentrate on study of the Bible, and to break the back

of New Testament Greek. It was into this preliminary year that biblical theology was later introduced. It is, I think, fair to say that one important failure that this subject helped to address was the lack of any explicit integration in the core subjects of the ordination course. There was also the need to improve biblical literacy. In the biblical studies curricula of the externally regulated ordination course there was nothing to require any interaction between the subjects. Of special concern was the fact that the current academic ethos encouraged the complete separation of the two parts of biblical studies: Old Testament and New Testament. For better or for worse, this formal separation has remained in the Moore College curricula. But, I have great confidence that the main reason for this

is practical and not ideological.Christian ministry is concerned to

bring salvation, in the broadest biblical sense of that word, to people by evan-gelism and nurture. It requires the com-prehensive application of the gospel. The gospel gets people converted and is, thus, necessary in evangelism to build up the church and because people need saving. But, contrary to some popular misconcep-tions, we do not move on from the gospel in Christian living, but with the gospel. The gospel is the power of God for all of salvation, and this means that it is also the matrix for sanctification. And it will be

the gospel that brings us to the consum-mation in final glorification.

This raises all kinds of questions, not least about preaching and teaching the Bible in churches. I will return to that in my next lecture. But, if we understand the seminary to be the place where people are prepared for such gospel-oriented min-istries, the question is raised about how

25

the gospel is taught. We need to ask how the Old Testament relates to such gospel ministry. At the very least, we have to say that the study of the Old Testament is the study of the gospel in type. Gods dealings with Israel testify to and fore-shadow the gospel. The New Testament, then, is the exposition of the gospel as Jesus fulfils the expectations of the Old

Testament. Christian doctrine expounds in contemporary terms the implications of the gospel for our understanding of God, humanity, and the created world. Church History is the study of how suc-cessive generations of Christians have understood and responded to the gospel in the world.

In an evangelical seminary, the almost complete separation of biblical studies from systematic theology, that Francis Watson laments in his book Text and Truth,12 is unlikely to happen. In other words, teachers of systematic theology will endeavor to teach what they believe to be biblical and, therefore, true doctrine. But how will the students perceive the relationship of systematic theology to the Bible? What is the goal of biblical studies?

The legacy of Gabler and the Enlighten-ment was to bring about the separation of Old Testament and New Testament even by biblical theologians. The writ-ing of biblical theologies of the whole Bible was overshadowed in the twentieth century by the plethora of either Old Testament or New Testament theologies. Even evangelical biblical scholars largely

avoided the task of an integrated biblical theology. No doubt the necessary divi-sion of labor and the sheer size of the task would be cited in defence of this situa-tion. The writing of biblical theologies of the whole Bible has always been seen as problematic. One reason for this is that

the theological relationship of the two Testaments remains perhaps the great-est of the ongoing problems for biblical studies. Even when we assert that there

is no ideological reason for separating the two Testaments, the need for division of labor still exists. This difficulty is surely

reflected in the seminary and Bible col-lege curricula.

I think that there are at least two ques-tions that must be constantly before the seminary and Bible college. The first is

What shall we do with the Bible? and

the second is the question Jesus asked, What do you think of the Christ: whose Son is he? These two questions are inter-

related in that the answer to each depends on the answer to the other. This does not reduce to a vicious circle, for we believe that the sovereignty of God in salvation brings us to a subjective conviction of the objective truth of the gospel and, thus, of the Bible. I refer again to the place of the inner testimony of the Spirit who works in tandem with the Word of God.

Unity and Distinction of Theological Disciplines

One approach to defining biblical theology, as a subject for the curriculum, is to state it negatively in contrast to other theological disciplines. In this regard, there is some agreement that biblical theology can be distinguished from systematic theology; and that it is in some sense historical and descriptive of what is in the Bible. We may also recognize both continuity with historical theology as well as important differences. We can define biblical theology at its simplest as

theology as the Bible reveals it (that is, within its historical framework and, thus, as a process). Geerhardus Vos defines it

thus: [biblical theology is] that branch

26

of Exegetical Theology which deals

with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.13 This self-revelation involves the word of God, communicated within history, and revealing the nature of Gods acts within human history. Voss relating of biblical theology to exegetical theology (exegesis with a view to getting at the theological content of the text) reminds us that it deals with the exegesis of the unique text that we have received as the inspired word of God.

In seeking to compare and contrast the nature of biblical theology with other theological disciplines we should not overlook the difficulty in strictly defining

the parameters of each, or in assessing the relationship they bear to one another. Historically, the Reformation provided an essential impetus to biblical theology. Even modern Roman Catholic biblical

studies must owe something to the fact that the Bible was released from its bondage to a clerical monopoly. This was, of course, not only due to the Reformers recovery of the Bible, and translations into the vernacular, but also to the invention of the printing press. I have already alluded briefly (in Lecture 1) to the fact

that Calvin in particular emphasized a presuppositional approach that grounded the hermeneutics and method of biblical study in the Bible itself. Our ultimate presupposition is the ontological Trinity revealed through Jesus Christ. The presuppositional framework includes those basic biblical assertions that involve the epistemology both of the unregenerate and of the regenerate person. Bearing in mind this presuppositional basis for biblical theology, we can seek to distinguish it from other disciplines in terms of method and scope.

Biblical Theology is Distinct from Systematic or Dogmatic Theology

When teaching biblical theology, I constantly reminded the students that to be good biblical theologians they need also to be good systematic theologians. While some distinguish systematic from dogmatic theology (systematic theology following a logical or philosophical organization, and dogmatics following a church confessional organization) I will treat them here as one. This is Doctrine.

It is systematic because it involves the systematic organization and classification

of the data of biblical doctrines on some kind of logical basis. Biblical theology, on the other hand, adopts mainly redemptive-historical and thematic perspectives. Systematics is dogmatic in that it is the orderly arrangement of the teachings of a particular view of Christianity. Dogmatics involves the crystallization of teachings as the end of the process of revelation and as what is to be believed now. While a high view

of doctrine would maintain that there is a certain absolute and unchangeable nature to the truth, it nevertheless strives to represent it in a contemporary fashion that is both understandable and applicable in the present.

Doctrine does not seem to be very highly regarded by a lot of evangelicals, which is not only a pity, it is perilous. In some cases it is due to a lack of careful teaching or the failure to draw out the doctrinal implications of a sermon. It is a challenge to the professors of theology to so enthuse the seminary students with the importance of theology and doctrine that they will see it as an integral part of their on-going ministry.

Biblical theology looks at the progres-sive revelation that leads to the final

27

formulation of doctrine. But, we remind ourselves that, while systematic theology is derivative of biblical theology, the two continually interact. The relationship of biblical and systematic theology is subject to ongoing debate. While some of the early impulse for biblical theology came from the dissatisfaction with a sterile orthodox approach to dogmatics, some biblical theologies were nevertheless driven by dogmatics in that the categories of dogmatic theology were used for the organization of biblical theology and its concepts. This is one step away from theology as the Bible presents it. This organizational feature should be clearly distinguished from the necessary use of dogmatic truths as the presuppositions for doing biblical theology.

While there is an important sense in which biblical theology is derivative of dogmatics, it is also true to assert that biblical theology stems from a dogmatic basis. This is the point I made in my first

lecture that the ultimate presuppositions of our dogmatic base go back to the effectual call of the gospel of Christ. It is his self-authenticating word that alone can bring submission to the authority of the Bible and engender a thirst for it as the word of God. If it is true to say, as I believe it is, that we begin with Christ so that we may end with Christ, the formal expression of this is that we begin with a doctrinal presupposition so that we may end with formulated doctrine.

In his editorial to Themelios (vol. 27, no. 3 [2001]) Carl Trueman expressed some concern that the resurgence of biblical theology in Britain, which had been partly fuelled by its revival in Australia, was showing a downside. He did not dispute the importance of biblical theology, but felt that, at least in the way some handled

it in Britain, it was leading to a neglect of systematic theology in general and of Trinitarian ontology in particular. I was constrained to respond to this in an article that Trueman graciously accepted and published in Themelios (vol. 28, no. 1 [2002]). I felt that biblical theology was being blamed for a problem that probably had other causes. I had first expressed my

views on the dogmatic basis of biblical theology in an essay for the Broughton Knox Festschrift published in 1986.14 That Jesus is Lord and Christ is a dogmatic

assertion which drives biblical theology:

Christ authenticated himself and established the dogmatic basis upon which the first Christians engaged in the task of understanding and interpreting their Old Testament scriptures. From the outset a funda-mental Christology determines bib-lical theology. It is Jesus Christ, the Word incarnate, who informs the biblical theologian of what actually is happening in the whole expanse of revelation.15

The question of the relationship of systematic and biblical theology has been aired by a number of biblical scholars over the years. Kevin Vanhoozer, in his 1994 Finlayson Lecture in Edinburgh,

argued for the ref inement of the biblical theologians approach to the various literary genre of the Bible.16 It is a reminder that the matter of how language works and is used by biblical authors is crucial to theology. Mostly the evangelical approach has been to see a logical progression from exegesis to a biblical-theological synthesis of the sum of exegetical exercises, and thence to the formulation of doctrine. There is, of course, an undeniable logic to this. My concern has been to keep this within the evangelical hermeneutical spiral. On these terms, biblical theology

28

is the activity of the epistemologically regenerated mind that adopts the gospel as its pou st, its fundamental reference point.

Biblical Theology is Distinct from Historical Theology

If Biblical Theology is an historical discipline, how does it differ from historical theology? The latter is usually

taken to be the study of the history of Christian doctrine or, more broadly, the history of Christian ideas. It looks at the way the church came to formulate doctrines at different periods of its history. It is interested in key Christian theologians and thinkers, and in the struggles that so often led to the formulation of doctrines and confessions of faith. It is, thus, an important dimension of church history. Biblical theologians and dogmaticians are concerned with the history of theology because we do not want constantly to reinvent the wheel, nor do we want repeatedly to fall foul of ancient heresies. To put it another way, we do not do theology in a vacuum but from within a living and historical community of believers. We go on evaluating the benefits of climbing on the backs of the

theologians that have gone before us.In one sense historical theology is a

continuation of biblical theology in that it reflects on the theology of Gods people

at any given time. But there is an obvious difference: just as the theological views of Israel at any given point in history do not necessarily coincide with the theology of the Old Testament, so too in the history of the church, the theology of the people is not necessarily, in fact never is completely, the theology of Jesus and the apostles. The source materials of the two disciplines are different. Historical

theology looks at how people responded to the gospel revelation. Biblical theology seeks to understand the revelation itself as it unfolds.

Biblical Theology is Distinct from Practical or Pastoral Theology

In general terms we are here talking about formulations of different aspects of the way the Word of God impinges on peoples lives. Theologies of evange-lism, church ministry and life, Christian education, counselling, marriage and human relationships, pastoral care, and the like would all fit into this category.

If systematic theology is derivative of biblical theology, then pastoral theol-ogy is derivative of systematic theology. Systematic theology is concerned with the contemporary application of biblical truth. Pastoral theology involves certain specifics of this contemporizing as it deals

with Christian behavior and practice. Biblical theology interacts with, and even presupposes certain aspects of systematic theology. In the same way systematic the-ology will find that it must interact with

pastoral theology so that it may address the ongoing needs of the people of God.

Biblical Theology in Ministerial Training

Geerhardus Vos was installed as professor of Biblical Theology at Princ-eton Seminary in 1894. In his inaugural lecture, he propounded his view of the nature of biblical theology. He then went on to say,

I have not forgotten, however, that you have called me to teach this science for the eminently practical purpose of training young men for the ministry of the Gospel.17

Given that most theological curricula in

29

the seminaries and Bible colleges seem to reflect their nineteenth century roots, can

biblical theology be taught within such a framework? I have argued that, to be true

to our evangelical view of the Bible, we must engage biblical theology. The evan-gelical institution is in an overall better position to shape a biblically based course than an institution driven by liberalism. But, history suggests that a self-conscious and intentional inclusion of biblical theol-ogy is not endemic in evangelical insti-tutions. If I am right in suggesting that this reflects our indebtedness to patterns

of pedagogy that developed under the Enlightenment, then it is alarming. If it is

driven by the desire to maintain high aca-demic standards that require a division of labor, that is another matter. I suspect that there is a further reason for the lack of formal courses in biblical theology. It is, I think, largely due to the uncertainties that have surrounded the subject, and the general state of flux that still exists.

As recently as 2001, J. G. McConville of Gloucestershire University (UK) wrote,

Biblical theology is a somewhat slippery creature, which at times basks in the sun and at other times retreats quietly, or even ignomini-ously, into the shade. If it seems at first glance to have a simplicity about it, this is deceptive, and it has a habit of changing its form when it re-emerges for another phase of its life. At present, Biblical theology shows signs of reaching its prime, after a spell in the wilderness.18

I suggest that it is up to the evangelical scholars, seminaries and colleges to see that this prime, if such it is, does not lead to another retreat into the shade. Two things at least will be needed for this: first, the ongoing struggle to define

the foundations, the parameters, the method, and the structure of biblical

theology, and, second, the implementa-tion of courses of instruction in biblical theology at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

An examination of the literature by evangelical biblical theologians illustrates what I mean. There are clearly differences of opinion about how to do biblical theol-ogy, and, thus, of what a first course in

biblical theology should look like. Writers such as Vos, Clowney, and Van Gemeren have given their analyses of the structure of revelation. But a comparison of them shows little agreement. More recently Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen have published The Drama of Scripture19 designed as a text for an introductory course in biblical theology. There are great strengths to this book but it fails, in my opinion, to adequately deal with the structure of revelation. I myself believe that the structure proposed by Hebert and Robinson is the one that best lays bare the matrix of progressive revelation.

Brevard Childs comments that G. E.

Wright lamented the neglect of biblical theology in America, saying that it was difficult to find a leading graduate school

where one could specialize in it.20 When I did a graduate segment on biblical the-ology, it was about biblical theologians, not about the Bible itself. I believe we need biblical theology as one of the first

courses in Bible for all seminary students. My opinion that is bred of my own experi-ences is that biblical theology should not only be a distinct subject in the seminary, but also it should be a compulsory core subject for anyone aspiring to be a teacher of Gods word. But, can biblical theology be taught within a curriculum structure that does not include it as a discreet sub-ject? Of course it can. But will it be? The

answer to that depends on the faculty

30

and the curriculum requirements of the seminary. Within the departments of biblical studies, will the Old Testament professors know what the New Testament professors are doing, and vice versa? Will the teachers of biblical studies engender a sense of biblical theology and train the students in its method?

The separation of the disciplines was encouraged by the secular tone of the universities. Even in Europe, Britain,

and the US, once the Enlightenment had

taken hold, the separation was seen as the academically respectable way to go. But, in my understanding, the seminary and the Bible college are significantly dif-ferent from the university in their aims. They will overlap to varying degrees with the aims of the university faculties of religion and theology, but their distinct task is to prepare people for gospel min-istry in the church of God. So, what kind of training is necessary to best prepare men and women for the whole range of ministries in the church? At least since

the nineteenth century, the typical semi-nary curricula have centered on the three areas of Bible, Doctrine, and History, and these, with a variety of skills training, will go on providing the core of ministe-rial education. It would be hard, I think, to argue against their inclusion in some way or other.

How such core courses are conducted and with what kind of curricula is still an issue. In considering this we should be driven by our understanding of Christian ministry and what lies at its heart. But, our understanding of Christian ministry will depend to a great degree on what we do with the Bible. At a conference on revisioning theological education for the twenty-first century held in Nairobi

in 1998, Victor Babajide Cole raised the

important matter of integration in the theological curriculum.21 In particular he was concerned with the relationship of theoretical theology to ministerial practice. He referred to a book by Elliot

Eisner who suggested that formal school

curricula fall into three categories. These are (1) the explicit curriculum of what the school intentionally and in reality offers to students; (2) the implied curriculum of non-salient aspects of what the school in fact teaches students but not intention-ally so; and (3) the null curriculum of

things deliberately omitted from teaching