69 See for example Matt 13:10–15; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10; John 12:37–40; 13:17–20, 27;
Rom 9:14–18; 11:7–10; 1 Pet 2:7–8.
70 See for example J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002), 51–78; Roger T. Forster and V.
Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1973), 59–61; Abasciano, Paul’s Use of OT in Romans 9.10-18, 203–14; A. Chadwick Thornhill, The Chosen People: Election, Paul and Second Temple Judaism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 238; Meadors, Idolatry and Hardening of Heart, 129–30; Stephen N. Williams, The Election of Grace: A Riddle without a Resolution?
Kantzer Lectures in Revealed Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 73–92.
71 This study does not attempt to address the perennial issues regarding inner-biblical exegesis.
These issues include such matters as (1) how allusions may be legitimately detected, (2) which versions of the biblical texts were read by the apostles, (3) what kind of freedom did they exercise in using those texts, (4) what impact the apostles’ hermeneutical practices should have on modern readers, and (5) what might the NT use of the OT suggest about the relationship between the two testaments. Nevertheless, because its scope includes a number of NT texts that make use of other OT passages, it may yet make a minor contribution to the biblical-theological study of inner-biblical exegesis.
its relationship to ST.
72While some have sought to blur the distinction between the two,
73many scholars still acknowledge that BT and ST refer to different, though overlapping, fields of study. On the one hand, BT involves the attempt to investigate the Bible on its own terms in order to discern and correlate all that the biblical authors intended to say and do in and through their writings (i.e., BT is exegetical, inductive, and canonical); on the other hand, ST is devoted to the task of discerning all that can be known about God and all things in relation to God.
74While confessional ST certainly shares BT’s concern for understanding the meaning of biblical texts,
75the former discipline distinguishes itself
72 Rightly, Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 6–7. In addition, the terms “dogmatics” or
“dogmatic theology” are often used interchangeably with ST within scholarship (John Webster,
“Introduction: Systematic Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 1).
73 For instance, Duby claims that “the common ways of attempting to distinguish [BT] from dogmatic theology are not viable.” While he says “there is a place for the work of biblical theology,” he provides no account of how the field actually does differ from ST. Steven J. Duby, “Goldingay on God:
Addressing the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology,” HBT 42 (2020): 122. Though he affords BT legitimacy in theory, in effect, Duby suggests that little (nothing?) differentiates BT from ST and that everything the former does, the latter can do (better?). However, Duby’s criticisms of the ways in which BT and ST are commonly distinguished are unpersuasive. For starters, Duby’s suggestion that Aquinas’ Summa Theologica reflects an inductive approach to the Bible is unlikely to convince anyone who is not already committed to defending or appropriating medieval theological methods (115–16).
Second, while Duby is of course correct to point out that BT must use words and phrases that are not found in the Bible, he fails to recognize the difference between, on the one hand, using available language to denote concepts that emerge from a plain reading of the biblical texts, and on the other, employing extrabiblical categories in order to pursue a knowledge of God that, though perhaps rooted in the Bible, goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves express (118). Finally, Duby’s method does not seem appropriate to the task he sets for himself; after all, given the complexity of the field, does it really suffice to use a single work of BT (i.e., Goldingay’s Biblical Theology) in order to make such sweeping claims?
74 For others who describe ST similarly, see Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, ed.
Daniel J. Sullivan, vol. 1, Great Books of the Western World 19 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952), 7; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 38; Webster, “Introduction,” 1–2; Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 74. Of course, the matter of defining ST is complex and not all theologians would define the discipline this way. As Webster rightly observes, the field is “characterized by a measure of internal contestation.” Webster, “Introduction,” 2.
75 Hasel is also correct to point out that approaches to ST will differ depending on whether or not the Bible is seen as a privileged source of revelation. Practitioners of ST who do prioritize the Bible’s testimony will “engag[e] in a constructive presentation of the meaning of biblical and Christian faith with full usage of information available beyond Scriptural revelation such as history, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and so forth, as long as such information is subject to the norms of biblical revelation and its
from the latter in that it does not treat the Scriptures as its chief object of study.
76In other words, subjects that are not directly addressed within Scripture are still properly within the scope of ST since the discipline is not finally about the message of the Bible per se, but it is rather about the knowledge of God and of all reality.
77Moreover, unlike BT, ST does not limit itself to the Bible as its source of information about God. So Martin rightly states, “[ST] seeks to connect the whole [message of the Scripture] to what may be discovered and learned outside of Scripture through God’s general revelation.”
78Thus, ST allows for extrabiblical (as opposed to unbiblical) frameworks or concepts to function positively within its pursuit of the knowledge of God and all things in relation to God.
79truth claims.” Hasel, “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” 127.
76 As Barr states, “Doctrinal theology, however much it works with the Bible and
acknowledges the Bible as authoritative, is not primarily about the Bible: it is primarily about God and its horizon is God.” Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 74.
77 So Bavinck can say that “dogmatics is not a kind of biblical theology that stops at the words of Scripture. Rather, according to Scripture itself, dogmatics has the right to rationally absorb its content and, guided by Scripture, to rationally process it and also to acknowledge as truth that which can be deduced from it by lawful inference.” Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:45. In fact, according to Williams, there is no subject matter that is outside of ST’s purview: “Theology, as we have noted, is concerned with God and other things as they relate to God, potentially everything, in other words. . . . This reach is not simply disciplinary hubris, . . . it reflects the nature of theology’s prime subject [i.e., God].” A. N.
Williams, “What Is Systematic Theology?,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11, no. 1 (2009):
46.
78 Oren R. Martin, “How Does Biblical Theology Compare to Other Theological Disciplines?,”
in DeRouchie, Martin, and Naselli, 40 Questions about Biblical Theology, 125.
79 So for instance, according to Webster, “the sources of systematic theological concepts are varied. Some are drawn from scripture, though often their systematic development involves a measure of generalization and regularization as concepts are put to work in different contexts and for different purposes than those in which they originally functioned. Other concepts are borrowed, adapted, or constructed from resources outside the sphere of Christian faith [emphasis added].” Webster,
“Introduction,” 9–10. Moreover, Healy posits that the task of ST includes “the activity of reflecting critically and constructively . . . on the Christian and non-Christian sources in relation to which [Christian beliefs and practices] arise.” Nicholas M. Healy, “What Is Systematic Theology?,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11, no. 1 (2009): 24. As an example of a theologian who openly borrows extrabiblical (and in this case, unbiblical) frameworks, see the work of Craig Carter, who argues that Platonism (or “Ur- Platonism”) is foundational for Christian theology (Craig A. Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018], 61–91).
For a convincing critique of Carter’s claims, see Garrett, Problem of the Old Testament, 70–71.
Thus, there remains good reason to distinguish between the two theological disciplines.
80According to Poythress, “Biblical theology and systematic theology both need robust interaction with one another for the sake of deepening their methodological and doctrinal soundness.”
81But if that is so, what ought to be the nature of that interaction?
Some have proposed that BT should serve as a bridge discipline between exegesis and systematic/dogmatic theology. Such a view can be traced back to Gabler, who argued that
“when these opinions of the holy men have been carefully collected from Holy Scripture and suitably digested, carefully referred to the universal notions, and cautiously
compared among themselves, the question of their dogmatic use may then profitably be established.”
82Though scholars have criticized various aspects of Gabler’s original vision, many have agreed with the proposal that BT should serve as an intermediate discipline between exegesis and ST. For example, Hodge maintains that the difference between BT and ST is that “the office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture,” while “the office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths.”
83Scobie describes BT as a discipline “situated between the historical (and literary) study of scripture on the one hand and its use by the Church in dogmatic theology and related areas on the other.”
84Gentry and Wellum posit that “the conclusions of systematic theology must first be grounded in the exegetical
80 A further difference between the two is that ST seeks to address current questions and issues while BT tries to limit itself to the concerns of the biblical authors. See Hart, “Systematic,” 345, 348–49;
Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 35–36.
81 Vern S. Poythress, “Kinds of Biblical Theology,” WTJ 70 (2008): 142.
82 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, “J. P. Gabler and the Distinction,” 142.
83 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1–2.
84 Scobie, “The Challenge of Biblical Theology,” 49–50. He suggests in particular that BT might function by building on the work of historical and text critics, providing “an overview and
interpretation of the shape and structure of the Bible as a whole,” and by seeking “the unity and continuity of Scripture, but without sacrificing the richness of its diversity.” Scobie, The Ways of Our God, 47.
conclusions of biblical theology.”
85Schreiner refers to BT as “a kind of bridge discipline” that stands “between responsible exegesis and responsible systematic theology”; he also states that a primary goal of BT ought to be to “inform systematic theology.”
86Carson likewise believes that BT admirably serves as a bridge discipline because of its close relationship to exegesis on the one hand and ST on the other.
87However, this is not to say that relationship between the disciplines is uni-directional in practice. As Carson observes,
Although in terms of authority status there needs to be an outward-tracing line from Scripture through exegesis towards biblical theology to systematic theology (with historical theology providing some guidance along the way), in reality various ‘back loops’ are generated, each discipline influencing the others, and few disciplines influencing the others more than does systematic theology.
88Nevertheless, proponents of this model still argue that in principle, BT should serve as the foundation for those forms of ST that privilege the authority of the Bible.
89Even with the caveats that confessional ST is also biblical and that BT is impacted by ST, some still find fault with the description of BT as an intermediate discipline.
90Vanhoozer denies that ST is a subsequent step to BT, and instead views the former as “a partner in the exegetical process itself.”
91Elmer Martens shares this
85 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 36.
86 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 883.
87 Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 91.
88 Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology, 102. See also Andrew David Naselli,
“D. A. Carson’s Theological Method,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 29, no. 2 (2011): 263.
89 As Hasel states, “Biblical theology is foundational for systematic theology, if systematic theology is understood to receive its normative authority from Scripture.” Hasel, “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” 127.
90 For examples, see Vanhoozer, “Is Theology of NT One or Many?,” 23; Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 64–68; Darian R. Lockett, “Some Ways of ‘Doing’ Biblical Theology: Assessments and a Proposal,” in Walsh and Elliott, Biblical Theology, 97.
91 Vanhoozer, “Is Theology of NT One or Many?,” 38.
perspective, stating that the “bridge-discipline” model is “badly flawed” and that “both biblical theologians and systematic theologians engage the biblical text.”
92Watson goes so far as to argue that the division between BT and ST “systematically distorts”
interpretation; thus, BT should be defined as “an interdisciplinary activity, unconstrained by conventional disciplinary boundaries and critical of the distortions that these
boundaries engender.”
93There is some merit to these critiques, and admittedly, the bridge metaphor can be taken too far.
94Nevertheless, critics of the “bridge-discipline” view of BT exaggerate the model’s flaws while also failing to attend to its merits.
95MacLeod outlines three reasons why BT should be viewed as a discipline that methodologically precedes ST: (1) such a view would remind BT practitioners that “the work of theology does not end with description and interpretation,” (2) such a model prevents ST from de- historizing theology and from obscuring truths about God’s personal and dynamic acts
92 He still admits however that ST is “not nearly as closely involved with the Scripture” and that in exegetical investigations, “the biblical theologian will take the lead.” Elmer A. Martens, “Moving from Scripture to Doctrine,” BBR 15, no. 1 (2005): 87–88.
93 Watson, Text and Truth, 7, 17.
94 While I agree with his proposal, it is unfortunate that Carson seems to express some
pessimism regarding the prospects of biblically faithful ST (see Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 101–2). In my opinion, the bridge model of BT should not be taken to imply that ST is
somehow biblically suspect. Nevertheless, even Carson does not deny that ST is “text based,” as he goes on to say that ST “seeks to rearticulate what the Bible says in self-conscious engagement with (including confrontation with) the culture” (102–3).
95 Many of the complaints about the “bridge-discipline” model stem from the argument that it inaccurately describes ST as being divorced from the Bible. However, in my view, it is possible to affirm the intermediate position of BT without arguing that ST is unconcerned with the biblical texts. After all, in describing BT and ST, I am only highlighting the expectations generally adopted by practitioners within these academic disciplines. I am not arguing that systematicians have never done or can never do detailed exegesis. Instead, I am merely observing that such involvement with the texts is not a prerequisite within the field of ST. In contrast, works within the field of BT are generally expected to be exegetical in character. Moreover, while I would describe BT as being “nearer” to the biblical text than ST, the metaphorical distance here refers to the level of textual engagement rather than to the level of biblical fidelity. In other words, it is not the case that BT is to be automatically privileged over ST in terms of its accuracy in expressing the theology contained in the Bible. However, it is the case that, unlike ST, works within BT are generally expected to include detailed exegesis.
within time and space, and (3) the precedence of BT serves to keep ST founded upon exegesis.
96I find these points compelling and am thus persuaded that the “bridge- discipline” model captures one of the unique values of BT.
97In the analysis of DRA that follows, I assume that BT should function as a bridge discipline between exegesis and ST. As such, the study goes beyond mere exegesis by synthesizing the canonical witness to DRA at multiple levels. At the same time, the study will not venture into the realm of systematics. In particular, the study will not seek to address (1) how its findings regarding DRA might impact other issues in dogmatics, or (2) contemporary concerns that may intersect with the subject of DRA. At the same time, I am hopeful that the results of this study will be of interest to systematic theologians, as the biblical portrait of DRA should have implications for a number of Christian doctrines.
96 MacLeod, “Biblical Theology,” 33–34.
97 In addition to the critics of the “bridge-discipline” model already mentioned, there are some who argue that BT cannot be an intermediate discipline since the biblical materials cannot be presumed to be relevant for contemporary theology. For instance, while he understands BT to “explicate the connections within the biblical material,” Barr states that “doctrinal theology . . . make[s] clear how far the biblical material is believed to correspond to the external, extra-biblical, reality that is the real object of faith.” Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 74. However, Barr’s position is likely to persuade only those who reject a confessional approach to BT.