Excerpted with permission from Theodorus C. Vriezen, Outline of Old Testament Theology (2d ed.; Newton, Massachusetts: Branford, 1970), pp. 147-52. Some footnotes have been omitted.
Basis, Task and Method of Old Testament Theology [14’7] In this book we start from the view that both us to its object and its method Old Testament theology is and must be a Christian theological science.’
That does not mean that it denies the empirico-historical, phenomeno- logical or any other results of the other branches of Old Testament study, but that it performs its task independently while taking account of and as- similating the results attained by Old Testament scholarship in all its vari- ous aspects-the results, therefore, not only in research in the fields of phenomenology and the history of religion, but also those of archaeology, philology, literature, history, exegesis, etc. It is [[148] not correct, there- fore, to incorporate the science of religion as such into theology itself, as was done by Procksch in his Theologie des A.T., for in that case the same procedure should be applied in the other branches of scholarship.2
It would be preferable to treat the history of religion as an indepen- dent parallel science, as was done by E. Sellin in his Alttestumentliche TheoZ- ogie auf religionsgeschichtlicher Crundlage, the first part of which deals with the Israelitisch-Jiidische Religionsgeschichte and the second with the Theologie dk A.T. It is hardly possible, though, to look upon the history of the reli- gion of Israel as the twin brother of Old Testament theology, for the two are indeed too far apart, even if this view is understandable from a histor- ical point of view. Old Testament theology is a form of scholarship differ- ing from the history of Israel’s religion in its object as well as in its method. In its object, because its object is not the religion of Israel but the Old Testament;’ in its method because it is a study of the message of the Old Testa- ment both in itself and in its relation to the New Testament.4
1. Also 0. Procksch, Theologie des A. T., 1950. . . .
2. Nowadays several scholars propose to incorporate the Introduction to the Old Testa- ment into theology, as was already done to a large extent by Von Rad.
3. On what grounds this distinction can be made is evident from what has been said above on [IVriezen 1970:1] pp. 24ff. and 51B.
4. The English works on the theology of the O.T. (A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the 0. T., 1911, and H. Wheeler Robinson, up. 86 n. 13 below]) give us particularly the impression that
About both these aspects we shall go into more detail. Only when Eissfeldt’s line of thought is followed out consistently can we arrive at a definition of Old Testament theology which guarantees a science inde- pendent in name and content. Old Testament theology is concerned with the Old Testament; that is to say it is not the religion of Israel in its histor- ical growth and origin, in its development and formation, that is of central importance (so that e.g. Israelite Baalism has as much right to our atten- tion as Yahwism), but it is concerned with the Old Testament as the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, and more especially of the Christians; its task is to define the characteristic features of the message of the Old Testament, and for that reason many things can be left out of account which are of more im- portance in the study of the religions of Israel; as a theological branch of scholarship the theology of the Old Testament seeks particularly the element qfre~ehztion in the nzessuge of the OZd Testament; it must work, therefore, with theological standards and must give its own evaluation of the Old Testament mes- sage on the ground of its Christian theological starting-point. In doing so it must guard against the error of tearing apart the cowelation between faith (r149] and revelation by identifying revelation and canon.5 From the Chris- tian theological point of view the canon, too, must be submitted to the ,judgement of the preaching of Jesus Christ. This implies that the method of Old Testament theology is not only purely phenomenological (a repro- duction of the Old Testament message in context), but it also gives the connection with the New Testament message and a judgement from the point of view of that message.6 So, as a part of Christian theology, Old
they start from a synthesis of the theological and the religio-historical methods (e.g. David- son, p. 6) and that it is this which makes their work so fascinating; cf. also the books by Row- ley [[The Unity of the Bible, 1953; The Faith of Israel, 19560 and North I[ The Thought of the Old Testament, 19480.
5. Cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit. p. 3n. (continuation of p. 2, n. I), who reproaches Barthian the- ology with this.
6. The programme unfolded above is an ideal objective, which could only be realized by the close co-operation of theologians in the fields of both the Old and the New Testament.
‘Therefore any Old Testament scholar who devotes himself to this task can achieve no more than patch-work. Von Rad thinks the application of standards so problematical that he pre- Ic*rs to refrain from using them completely. for the present at any rate, and to go no further
t ban allowing the Old Testament authors to proclaim their message as objectively as possible (see Th.L.Z. 1963, pp. 407f.). Meanwhile in the latter part of the second volume of his The- ology he meets the problem of the relationship between the two Testaments in such a way as 10 relate the Old Testament typologically t’o the New Testament. It remains to be seen if in doing so he pays sufficient attention to the critical relationship between the two Testaments :tt~d if this kind of methodical search for a solution does not imply a theological conception which does identify canon and revelation after all.
82
84 Tkodorus C. Vrim
Testament theology in the full sense of the word gives an insight into the Old Testament message and a judgement of this message from the point of view of the Christian faith. It includes the theological motives found in the Old Testament,’ but it is also concerned with the whole reality of the revelation of God, as described to us in the historical conceptions and the literary testimony of the Old Testament. In doing this it is not enough to give a general survey of ‘sacred history’, with a simple rendering of the biblical narrative in the order in which it is given to us in the Canon,8 but it must express the message of God of the Old Testament (using the re- sults of critical research) as it took shape in the various books and sources of the Old Testament during the history which God made Israel pass through until Jesus Christ. All this means complete absorption in the voices which bear witness in the Old Testament to the work of God and so to Him in the course of history and this is not El501 merely a philological and historical exercise but also a personal exercise in listening and spiri- tual understanding.
When the question of method is raised we must say first of all that Old Testament theology must first and foremost inquire into the kerugmatic nature’ of the Old Testament as a whole and of its parts.” This should really be looked upon as a necessary preliminary. For this reason the out- line of the message of the separate writings has been given in the prolego- mena (Ch. III). This study must always be continued.
On the ground of the understanding of the message of the books and their authors we can expound the whole body of their testimony concern- ing God, His work and His relations with man and the world. Fundamen-
7. See [Vriezen 197O:O p. 153.
8. As given e.g. by A. C. Welch in his book for religious instruction, Thefmparatim fm Christ, 1933, or by 0. Weber, BibeLkunde des A. T., I, II, 1935, or by P. Heinisch, Ceschichte aYes A.T., 1950, however important this sacred history may be; (cf. that already A. J. C. Vilmar, Thmlogk a’er Tatsachen, 3rd printing, 1938, p. 33 emphasizes the necessity of a ‘special acquaintance with the contents of the whole Bible, which has long since been lost’); the sacred history is an indispensable and basic element of all theological study, though one which is all too often lacking. If, however, theology were to stop short here, it would mainly bear witness to only one type of preaching in O.T. viz. that of the last editors of the books, and give us too little insight into the various forms of the message and its spiritual development in Israel.
9. See G. von Rad, ‘Grundprobleme einer biblischen Theologie des A.T.‘, Thol. Lit. Zt., Sept./Ott. 1943, pp. 225ff.
10. Essentially Von Rad would restrict the task of Old Testament theology to this latter inquiry, for the present anyway. Actually he does not, because he also raises the subject of the relationship between the two Testaments in his 0.7: Theology (II, pp. 319ff.), where he gives theological directives which make us wonder if they sprang from the study of the tradition- theology, or rather dominate the latter (cf. also the closing remarks of von Rad’s articlle in ThLZ, 1963, p. 416). Th’ dIS oes not mean that all the historical sources of the Old Testament conform to a certain kerygmatic ground-plan (creed), as Von Rad thinks.
The Nature of the Knowledge of Cod 85
tally the witness of the God of Israel, Yahweh, is the central element of the words of the Old Testament authors. There are many voices to be heard
in the various writings, but the speakers and singers all want to proclaim one and the same God. He is the one focal point of all the Old Testament writings, whatever their literary character, whatever their period of ori- gin.” This leads me to the conclusion that Old Testament theology must centre upon Israel’s God as the God of the Old Testament in His relations to the people, man, and the world, and that it must be dependent upon this central element for its structure.
The attempt to understand the Old Testament in this respect de- mands a continuous intensive contact with the whole of Old Testament scholarship, with its philological and literary aspects as well as II 1511 with its aspects in the field of general history and the history of religion. To demonstrate this connection, this last question was expressly put in Ch. II.
It is, however, neither possible nor necessary in a theology of the Old Testament to deal with all questions concerning the ‘religonsgeschichtliche’
and phenomenological background of the message of the Old Testament.
It can only lightly touch on a few very important points, so that the true nature of certain elements can be understood more clearly by a compar- ison with this background. A synthesis of the material obtained in this way cannot be given without more ado, for the content of the message of sev- eral books, even concerning one special aspect, is not always the same;
these books will have to be confronted with each other and then with the message of the New Testament, in order that we may form an idea of the deepening or decay of spiritual knowledge by seeing the mutual relations between these different elements, and in order that an impression may be obtained of the guidance of the Spirit in the history of revelation.
It is not really possible to press Old Testament theology into a com- plete systematical survey, though many have attempted this, including Ludwig Kiihler in his well-known Theologie des A.7’.12 Porteous is probably
11. Von Rad, too, accepts Yahweh as the element in the Old Testament common to all efforts in the field of historical theology (ThLZ, 1963, p. 409); he could hardly do anything else. It is a mystery to me, however, why he should deny that Yahweh is to be looked upon as the central element of the Old Testament. Does this imply a theological conception that nlakes Christ the ‘centre’ of the Old Testament? (cf. O.T. Thology II, pp. 362ff.). However that may be, I am of the opinion that he lays too much stress upon the divergence between lhr various testimonies concerning Yahweh to be found in the books of the Old Testament.
1 lis point of view is theologically unrealistic when considered in the light of the unity that is :I characteristic of the Old Testament witness to God in all its divergent traditions. In Th Mrnning of Biblical Theology (JThS 1955, pp. 210ff.) G. Ebeling expresses the view that its task (.onsists in the inquiry into the relations between the variety of testimony and the inner unity 01 the New Testament.
12. Third ed. 1953.
86 Theodms C. Vrim
right when he remarks that owing to this procedure Kiihler has failed to find a satisfactory place in his scheme for the cult so that he came to rele- gate it to anthropology. At any rate the subjects of the Old Testament al-
ways interlock in such a way that a systematic classification of the material implies some measure of arbitrariness. A classification which expresses an existential relationship, such as that between God and people, God and the world, or God and man, attempted by Eichrodt and Procksch, has many advantages but is not wholly satisfactory either.
In view of what we said on fpp. 84-851 we shall have to divide up our subject as follows: communion as a relationship and the communion be- tween God and man, communion with Yahweh in history, and the pros- pects for man and the world. We have always considered these subjects in their connection with each other; this feature is emphasized especially by the first chapter on the content of Old Testament theology-the nature of the Old Testament knowledge of God as a relationship between the holy God and man--’in which we have tried to keep the essential charac- teristic of the Old Testament message to its existential plane; the chapter anticipates the next three: communion between God and man, the com- munion of faith and the prospects for man and the world and was in- tended as a summarizing introduction to these chapters.
El521 In this procedure repetition could not always be avoided. If the various subjects are to be considered in their true connection, certain matters must come up for discussion more than once, though from differ- ent points of view.
One thing is certain, though, that the attempt to give a living and true picture of the Old Testament message, on the one hand in its connection with the history of Israel,” on the other hand in its perspective in revela- tion in Jesus Christ, can never succeed fully, not only because our under- standing of the Old Testament and the New Testament and of their mutual coherence will always remain imperfect, but above all because God’s activity in the history of Israel, the history of salvation (and there is no better name to be found for it), can never be made completely perspi-
13. This is emphasized by H. Wheeler Robinson in his contributions to the theology of the O.T. in Record and Revelation, and in his Inspiration and Reuelation in the O.T., 1946. This is done even more strongly by Von Rad, who ranks history, in the form of the traditions con- cerning Cod’s activity so highly that it becomes the source of the knowledge of Cod and a sep- arate, independent element in Israel’s religious life, an element, even, of central importance.
Here various objections make themselves felt, i.a. that this view is too one-sided, that it sys- tematizes and abstracts too much (“history” is detached almost completely from the historical facts and, as the central element of the Old Testament message, it is, in fact, as much of a concept as the terms formerly derived from Christian theology). Has ‘history’ in the Old Tes- tament any other aim than leading man to Cod and to belief in Him (Exod 14:31)? On this question see also [[Vriezen 197&J pp. 188ff.
The Nature of the Knowkdge of God 87
cacious to the depths of God Himself, for if we compare this history with a line, there are only certain points of this line that are visible, the line itself cannot be copied by any man, because it is God’s secret14 and He Himself,
too, remains a miraculous and essentially hidden God, also in the Old Testament, however much He reveals Himself again and again in history, personal relationship or otherwise.
Synopsis of Vriezen’s Outline of Old Testament Theology (1970)
Part 1: Introduction
The Christian church and the Old Testament
The historical character of the Old Testament revelation;
fundamental and factual observations
The spiritual structure of the Old Testament and of the Old Testament writings
The Old Testament as the word of God, and its use in the church Basis, task and method of Old Testament theology
Part 2: The Content of Old Testament Theology
The nature of the knowledge of God in the Old Testament as an intimate relationship between the holy God and man The intercourse between God and man
The community of God
The prospect of the community of God: God, man and the world in the present and the future
11-21 22-49 50-90 91-142 143-152
153-175 176-289 290-429 430-463
14. For that reason one must be careful in using the name histotia Rmekztionis, which Kiiyper (,??nqck+edie III, p. 166) wished to give to this subject and especially in using the clcfinition of its task: ‘to describe the process of the Revelation of God to mankind and to
throw light upon this process both in its parts and in the whole of its progress’. Kraemer rightly remarks (op. cit., p. 23) that the word ‘process’ is entirely out of place beside the word ‘revelation’. On the other hand a Christian need not shrink back from the idea of a line of development which is implicit in the idea of history-for a Christian believes that Cod has a plan, and he may try to trace this plan, if only he realizes that this plan is fully known ally to God.