Image via Amazon.com
I could not be more excited about this book. Schreiner is an excellent biblical theologian, and *finally* we are seeing a bit more production in the area of whole Bible biblical theologies. I also am excited to see his organization of the book around God, his people, and the land.
The volume is slated for publication in June 2013 by Baker Academic.
For my Biblical Interpretation class at CBU I am requiring Robert Plummer’s 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible and Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan. Although the latter book is technically (and subtitled) “an introduction to biblical theology,” I am requiring it because, as Goldsworthy notes, “biblical theology is essential for hermeneutics” (25). In chapter one, Goldsworthy gives the following reasons why this is the case:
What you might notice from this list is that the first four points essentially say that biblical theology enables us to read the Bible as a whole and not just individual parts. This is vital to the task of interpretation, as each passage, chapter, section, and book of the Bible cannot be understood without placing it in the larger context of the biblical canon. This helps interpreters deal with two major roadblocks, namely problematic passages (#1 above) and the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament (#3). It also allows us to read the Bible as a unified story (#2) about Jesus Christ (#3b), which is then the proper way to understand application (#5). Biblical theology, in other words, gives us the context for interpretation (the whole Bible and its story), the object of interpretation (Jesus Christ), and the goal of interpretation (transformation into Christ’s image. Biblical theology could not be more important to the task of interpretation.
My field is technically biblical theology, but I’ve found that the most helpful scholars are well-rounded and able to connect the disciplines. Additionally, in my PhD studies I came to the rather outlandish idea (*sarcasm*) that biblical studies, biblical theology, systematic theology (including historical and philosophical sub-disciplines), practical theology, and homiletics ought to form an interconnected whole. This of course is not an idea original to me, but SEBTS helped me to understand it and practice it. Recently I’ve been thinking specifically about the intersection between biblical and systematic theology. I wonder if specific biblical theological themes, such as the Temple, can help us not only connect BT and ST but also categories within ST?
For instance, as the Temple is the place where God meets man, so it is also may be a place where Christology meets eschatology.
Within the doctrine of Christology, one of the most important Old Testament identity markers for the person of Christ is that of Temple. Jesus’ identification of himself with the Temple of God helps theologians to develop a robust Christological identity that includes Christ’s rule over all things, his priestly office of reconciliation, his function as the restored image of God, and his communication of the real presence of God with humankind.
Not only does this help theologians identify and characterize the person of Christ, though, but it also aids them in connecting Christology with eschatology. The doctrine of eschatology is rooted in God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament, and they can be summed up in the expectation that Yahweh will return to rule over his enemies, reconcile Israel to himself, restore Israel to be the image bearers of God, and dwell with them through his real presence.
These expectations are all realized in Jesus’ identification of himself as the Temple, and thus the Christological identity of Jesus as Temple functions also to define the eschatological reality of the inaugurated last days.
Revelation can broadly be described as God’s self-disclosure to humanity. Brevard Childs states that the goal of God’s self-disclosure is so that all may see and know him.[1] Thus, God’s revelation proceeds from his activity and to understand his actions is to know God.[2] In the Hebrew Bible, God’s revelation comes in different variety of media: fire, thunder, a whisper, a donkey but these often are related to and initiated through his spoken word, in turn bringing upon some type of action.[3] Two examples that I think this can be seen is through creation and covenant.
In the creation story, God’s word is portrayed as the actor. The Psalmist states that it was by God’s word that creation came forth (Psalm 33:6, 9). In God’s self-disclosure to humanity in Genesis 2:17, God commands Adam to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This command has an implicit promise that if Adam and Eve refrained from eating of the tree they would continue to live in the blessings of the garden and an explicit promise that if they did eat they would die. For Adam and Eve, because of their disobedience, God’s word of judgment becomes actualized. Their knowledge of God and his action of one who blesses and provides in the garden now include a God who judges and is more concealed outside the garden.
Another significant high point in the Hebrew Bible is the Abrahamic covenant. In Genesis 12:1-3 God establishes a relationship with Abram through the utterance of a promise—heir, land, nation, and international blessing.[4] God commits himself to Abram and to Abram’s family. God reveals himself to be loyal and will bless his family. God’s act in revealing himself again begins by establishing a particular relationship through his word. Likewise, it seems that God’s disclosure is initiated freely by himself, but is actualised by Abram believing by faith.
It seems that from the perspective of these examples of the Hebrew Bible that God’s self disclosure has a tight relationship to the obedience and faith of his people. I think this brings an interesting perspective to Christian theology which rightly understands God’s initiative in revelation, but what role does the idea of understanding, listening, and obedience play in this self-disclosure?
[1] Brevard S Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 43-44.
[2] Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 45.
[3] Timothy Ward, Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 21.
[4] Paul R House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 75.
Further Reading
Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology, 468-96
Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament, 333-358
Balentine, S. The Hidden God
Childs, Brevard. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 20-59.
Ward, Timothy. Words of Life: Scripture as Living Active Word of God.
Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture.
I received exciting news this morning that my article “Victory, Atonement, Restoration, and Response: The Shape of the New Testament Canon and the Holistic Gospel Message” has been accepted for publication the Winter 2012 issue of Southeastern Theological Review. This article was a fun one to write, since it was the first new project I’ve worked on using the methodological and theological foundations I proposed in my dissertation.
Here’s an abstract-like paragraph from the introduction:
The canonical shape of the New Testament aids the reader in understanding the biblical gospel as a threefold work of victory over evil, restoration of creation, and redemption from sin through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, as well as the proclamation of the church of that work both in announcing it and calling the nations to respond to it. This will be demonstrated through attention to the shape of the fourfold gospel corpus and Acts, the placement of Revelation at the end of the canon, and the shape of the epistles. In searching the biblical material, primary emphasis will be placed on demonstrating that Christ’s work, and therefore the gospel, includes victory, atonement, and restoration. Some brief concluding thoughts on the need for a personal response to Christ’s message, and that response’s part in the gospel, will also be offered.
I’ve been reading through Hearing the Old Testament edited by Bartholomew and Beldman. I thought this quote from Mark Boda was worth passing along.
This hermeneutical agenda for biblical theology, which arises from the self-witness of Scripture, explains the ubiquitous interconnections between the various parts of the canon. The Old Testament canon itself displays inner cohesion through the regular use of quotations, allusions, and echoes of earlier Old Testament passages. This trend, which is observable in the Old Testament, only increases in the New Testament. It is important to take a closer look at this phenomenon of inner-biblical connectivity by looking at the ways the New Testament writers used the Old Testament and the ways Old Testament writers used other parts of the Old Testament. The biblical witness itself lays the foundation hermeneutically for Christian biblical theologians to follow as they seek to read the Old Testament as Christian Scripture.
Mark J. Boda (“Biblical Theology and Old Testament Interpretation” in Hearing the Old Testament, ed. Craig Bartholomew and Dave Beldman, Eerdmans, 2012). 135
In my Hebrew Scripture Theology seminar we had a seminar on Jewish Biblical Theology. A Jewish Biblical Theology has unique challenges: history of the discipline, conceptual coherence. But one thing I found interesting is its shared challenge with Christianity in what role will each religion’s other authoritative texts. Because both Judaism and Christianity have other authoritative texts when interpreting the Hebrew Bible, can there be fruitful dialogue over its theology?
I think this may be the most significant question for the outcome of a Jewish Biblical Theology in general and for Jewish-Christian theological-dialogue. If a Jewish theologian wishes to approach the theological task normatively, then he or she will not approach only the Hebrew Bible but must address Judaism’s other authoritative texts such as Midrash, Talmud, Targums, mystical literature, medieval and modern works of liturgy, Halakhah, commentary, philosophy, Kabbalah, and Hasidism. The inclusion of these texts and the dialogue each of them have with the Hebrew Bible changes the message of the Hebrew Bible on its own.
Likewise, a Christian perspective must address what role the New Testament will play. From a normative position, I’m not sure how a Christian would not include the New Testament. The New Testament serves as the telos of the Hebrew Bible that leads to a Christian reading. I think it would be beneficial that both Judaism and Christianity be in dialogue over the theology of the Hebrew Bible, but the way forward in dialogue will not be over the normative message but will be descriptive by nature.
If anyone else has been reading in this area, what are your thoughts?
Further Reading
James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, pp. 286-311
A.G. Auld, “Can a Biblical Theology also be Academic or Ecumenical?” in Text as Pretext, ed. R.P. Carroll pp. 13-27
J.D. Levenson, “Why Jews are not interested in Biblical Theology”, in The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, pp. 33-61
M. Sweeney, “Jewish Biblical Theology and Christian Old Testament Theology”, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 134/4 (April 2009): 397-410
One of the most frequent and toughest questions I get asked is how Christians are to treat the Mosaic Law. Why don’t we have to avoid wearing blended clothing or be circumcised or avoid eating shellfish?
G. K. Beale, in his A New Testament Biblical Theology, argues for what I believe is the correct answer to this question. The following is a lengthy quote (pp. 424-425), but I think it’s well worth reading (as is the entire book):
…Jesus redefines a true Israelite as ‘whoever does the will of my Father’ [Matt. 12:46-50]…. Jesus’ true family consists of those who trust in him, not those who are related to him by blood. Because Jesus is restoring not only Israel but also all of creation, including gentiles (Matt. 15:21-28; 21:40-44), the true people of God no longer can be marked out by certain nationalistic badges that distinguish one nation from another. … Jesus is redefining the true Israel, the true people of God, by saying that loyalty to him is the mark of a faithful Israelite. People no longer must possess the badges of old national Israel in order to be part of the true, new Israel. … You do not have to be of the bloodline of Abraham to be his true child, nor do you have to move to Israel geographically to become an Israelite; you merely have to move to Jesus, true Israel, and embrace him. As we will see, this applies to the temple (Jesus is the temple), circumcision (in him we have been circumcised [Col. 2:11]), and the Sabbath rest (true ultimate rest is found in him forever, not merely physical rest on the seventh day).
In other words, the Mosaic Law served as a covenant boundary marker around ethnic Israel, but now Jesus as true Israel serves as the covenant boundary marker around spiritual Israel (as Beale notes [p. 425, n. 93], this was argued previously by, among others, N. T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God [401-403]).
Via Google Images
A common view I often encounter is that God is going to completely obliterate the entire physical universe at Christ’s return and basically just start over. It always reminds me of Darth Vader destroying Alderaan in Episode IV.
The text most often used in these encounters is 2 Peter 3:1-13, which says this:
3 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[b] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.[c]
11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
The common assumption is that the language in this text about “burning” and “dissolving” and “passing away” means that the physical world will be completely annihilated. There are a number of reasons, though, why I doubt this is the meaning of the passage.
The metaphor of fire, combined with the historical parallel of the purging Noahic flood, a sacramental worldview, and an understanding of John’s use of “new” and creation imagery in Revelation 21-22 points to this coming judgment of fire as a purging judgment, not an annihilating one. It’s purpose is to purge the physical world of the effects of the curse so that God can dwell with his people on it, not to obliterate it completely and start over.
So, God isn’t going to go all Death Star on the Universe. At least not in my opinion.
I. Howard Marshall published his review of G. K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology yesterday in Themelios, and was generally positive towards Beale’s work. After giving an extensive summary of the book, Marshall praises Beale for being exegetically mindful, but then brings up three areas “for discussion.” One of these is Beale’s use of intertextuality as a hermeneutical method. Marshall says this concerning Beale’s attempt to demonstrate verbal connections between different biblical passages:
[T]his area includes both Beale’s own interpretation of what OT passages would have meant for the original authors and readers, and also what meaning was seen in them by the NT authors who cite or allude to them. Beale is influenced here by the kind of research stimulated by Richard Hays, which attaches lots of significance to verbal coincidences that may or may not be significant. There may be a tendency to assume that the author of one passage shares the thoughts of another author without actually referring to them.
Marshall here appears cautious at best about using textual similarities between books as an interpretive grid for understanding the author’s point. I don’t intend here to justify Beale’s method; check out his opening chapter in We Are What We Worship, look at Hays’ Echoes of Scripture, or read Sailhamer, Childs, Chapman, Rendtorff, Seitz, or a number of other OT scholars to gain a sense of the legitimacy of the exercise.
My question here is twofold: 1) does it seem to you, as it does to me, that intertextuality as a hermeneutical method is more acceptable in OT studies than in NT studies? And 2) if so, why do you think that is the case?
